↓ Skip to main content

Sedation levels in dogs: a validation study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Sedation levels in dogs: a validation study
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12917-017-1027-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marika C. Wagner, Kent G. Hecker, Daniel S. J. Pang

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess validation evidence for a sedation scale for dogs. We hypothesized that the chosen sedation scale would be unreliable when used by different raters and show poor discrimination between sedation protocols. A sedation scale (range 0-21) was used to score 62 dogs scheduled to receive sedation at two veterinary clinics in a prospective trial. Scores recorded by a single observer were used to assess internal consistency and construct validity of the scores. To assess inter-rater reliability, video-recordings of sedation assessment were randomized and blinded for viewing by 5 raters untrained in the scale. Videos were also edited to allow assessment of inter-rater reliability of an abbreviated scale (range 0-12) by 5 different raters. Both sedation scales exhibited excellent internal consistency and very good inter-rater reliability (full scale, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICCsingle] = 0.95; abbreviated scale, ICCsingle = 0.94). The full scale discriminated between the most common protocols: dexmedetomidine-hydromorphone (median [range] of sedation score, 11 [1-18], n = 20) and acepromazine-hydromorphone (5 [0-15], n = 36, p = 0.02). The hypothesis was rejected. Full and abbreviated scales showed excellent internal consistency and very good reliability between multiple untrained raters. The full scale differentiated between levels of sedation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 32 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 48 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Unspecified 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 38 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 June 2017.
All research outputs
#8,077,465
of 15,699,193 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#518
of 2,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,429
of 267,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#7
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,699,193 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,306 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 267,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.