↓ Skip to main content

Recommendations for anesthesia and perioperative management in patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome(s)

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
56 X users
facebook
14 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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
Recommendations for anesthesia and perioperative management in patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome(s)
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13023-014-0109-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Wiesmann, Marco Castori, Fransiska Malfait, Hinnerk Wulf

Abstract

Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS, ORPHA98249) comprises a group of clinically and genetically heterogeneous heritable connective tissue disorders, chiefly characterized by joint hypermobility and instability, skin texture anomalies, and vascular and soft tissue fragility. As many tissues can be involved, the underlying molecular defect can manifest itself in many organs and with varying degrees of severity, with widespread implications for anesthesia and perioperative management. This review focuses on issues relevant for anesthesia for elective and emergency surgery in EDS. We searched the literature for papers related to all EDS variants; at the moment most of the published data deals with the vascular subtype and, to a lesser extent, classic and hypermobility EDS. Knowledge is fragmented and consists mostly of case reports, small case series and expert opinion. Because EDS patients commonly require surgery, we have summarized some recommendations for general, obstetrical and regional anesthesia, as well as for hemostatic therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 X users 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 131 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 24 18%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 33 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 03 February 2024.
All research outputs
#854,953
of 25,519,924 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#78
of 3,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,145
of 240,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#2
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,519,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 240,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.