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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 17% |
| Italy | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 121 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Unknown | 51 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 51 | 42% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | <1% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 57 | 47% |
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
#13,259,840
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#807
of 3,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,083
of 312,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#28
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,087 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 312,339 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 67% of its contemporaries.