↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Dexmedetomidine on motor- and somatosensory-evoked potentials in patients with thoracic spinal cord tumor: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
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.
Title
Effects of Dexmedetomidine on motor- and somatosensory-evoked potentials in patients with thoracic spinal cord tumor: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12871-016-0217-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Li, Lingzhong Meng, Yuming Peng, Hui Qiao, Lanjun Guo, Ruquan Han, Adrian W. Gelb

Abstract

We hypothesized that the addition of dexmedetomidine in a clinically relevant dose to propofol-remifentanil anesthesia regimen does not exert an adverse effect on motor-evoked potentials (MEP) and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP) in adult patients undergoing thoracic spinal cord tumor resection. Seventy-one adult patients were randomized into three groups. Propofol group (n = 25): propofol-remifentanil regimenand the dosage was adjusted to maintain the bispectral index (BIS) between 40 and 50. DP adjusted group (n = 23): Dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg/kg loading dose infused over 10 min followed by a constant infusion of 0.5 μg/kg/h) was added to the propofol-remifentanil regimen and propofol was adjusted to maintain BIS between 40 and 50. DP unadjusted group (n = 23): Dexmedetomidine (administer as DP adjusted group) was added to the propofol-remifentanil regimen and propofol was not adjusted. All patients received MEP, SSEP and BIS monitoring. There were no significant changes in the amplitude and latency of MEP and SSEP among different groups (P > 0.05). The estimated propofol plasma concentration in DP adjusted group (2.7 ± 0.3 μg/ml) was significantly lower than in propofol group (3.1 ± 0.2 μg/ml) and DP unadjusted group (3.1 ± 0.2 μg/ml) (P = 0.000). BIS in DP unadjusted group (35 ± 5) was significantly lower than in propofol group (44 ± 3) (P = 0.000). The addition of dexmedetomidine to propofol-remifentanil regimen does not exert an adverse effect on MEP and SSEP monitoring in adult patients undergoing thoracic spinal cord tumor resection. The study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on January 31st, 2014. The reference number was ChiCTR-TRC-14004229.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 8 14%
Other 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 21 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,380,722
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#667
of 1,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,892
of 366,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#15
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,500 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 366,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.