You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An Update on Drugs Used for Lumbosacral Epidural Anesthesia and Analgesia in Dogs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fvets.2017.00068 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paulo V. M. Steagall, Bradley T. Simon, Francisco J. Teixeira Neto, Stelio P. L. Luna |
| Abstract |
This review aims to report an update on drugs administered into the epidural space for anesthesia and analgesia in dogs, describing their potential advantages and disadvantages in the clinical setting. Databases searched include Pubmed, Google scholar, and CAB abstracts. Benefits of administering local anesthetics, opioids, and alpha2 agonists into the epidural space include the use of lower doses of general anesthetics (anesthetic "sparing" effect), perioperative analgesia, and reduced side effects associated with systemic administration of drugs. However, the potential for cardiorespiratory compromise, neurotoxicity, and other adverse effects should be considered when using the epidural route of administration. When these variables are considered, the epidural technique is useful as a complementary method of anesthesia for preventive and postoperative analgesia and/or as part of a balanced anesthesia technique. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 152 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 13% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 9% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 28 | 18% |
| Unknown | 43 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 73 | 48% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,345,967
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#2,314
of 6,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,252
of 421,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#20
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.