↓ Skip to main content

Safety and feasibility of xenon as an adjuvant to sevoflurane anaesthesia in children undergoing interventional or diagnostic cardiac catheterization: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Safety and feasibility of xenon as an adjuvant to sevoflurane anaesthesia in children undergoing interventional or diagnostic cardiac catheterization: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0587-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Devroe, Jurgen Lemiere, Marc Van de Velde, Marc Gewillig, Derize Boshoff, Steffen Rex

Abstract

Xenon has minimal haemodynamic side effects when compared to volatile or intravenous anaesthetics. Moreover, in in vitro and in animal experiments, xenon has been demonstrated to convey cardio- and neuroprotective effects. Neuroprotection could be advantageous in paediatric anaesthesia as there is growing concern, based on both laboratory studies and retrospective human clinical studies, that anaesthetics may trigger an injury in the developing brain, resulting in long-lasting neurodevelopmental consequences. Furthermore, xenon-mediated neuroprotection could help to prevent emergence delirium/agitation. Altogether, the beneficial haemodynamic profile combined with its putative organ-protective properties could render xenon an attractive option for anaesthesia of children undergoing cardiac catheterization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 20%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Other 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 43%
Psychology 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 17 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,677,715
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#3,784
of 5,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,412
of 257,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#78
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 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 5,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 257,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.