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 |
Effect of desmopressin administration on intraoperative blood loss and quality of the surgical field during functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomized, clinical trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12871-015-0034-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hua Shao, Li-Ting Kuang, Wei-Jian Hou, Tao Zhang |
| Abstract |
Bleeding during functional endoscopic sinus surgery is a challenge for the quality of the surgical field for surgeons. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of desmopressin premedication on blood loss and the quality of the surgical field in endoscopic sinus surgery. A total of 90 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II patients underwent endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic sinusitis. They were randomly allocated to receive either desmopressin 0.3 μg/kg or saline before the operation. Management of anesthesia was achieved with propofol and remifentanil infusions, with moderate, controlled hypotension. Blood loss and quality of the surgical field were assessed after surgery. Effects of desmopressin on anesthetic requirements and hemodynamic variables were analyzed. Blood loss was significantly less in the desmopressin group (mean ± SD, 42 ± 8.7 ml) than in the control group (70 ± 9.2 ml, P < 0.001). Surgeons were more satisfied with the surgical field in the desmopressin group than in the control group (median score, 4 [3-5] vs. 7 [6-9], P < 0.001). Requirements for remifentanil and esmolol were lower in the desmopressin group than in the control group. Premedication with desmopressin 0.3 μg/kg can effectively reduce bleeding during endoscopic sinus surgery. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 56% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
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 12 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,268,102
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#1,174
of 1,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,654
of 264,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#35
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,496 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 264,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.