↓ Skip to main content

Sciatic lateral popliteal block with clonidine alone or clonidine plus 0.2% ropivacaine: effect on the intra-and postoperative analgesia for lower extremity surgery in children: a randomized…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Sciatic lateral popliteal block with clonidine alone or clonidine plus 0.2% ropivacaine: effect on the intra-and postoperative analgesia for lower extremity surgery in children: a randomized prospective controlled study
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2253-12-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kalliopi Petroheilou, Stavros Livanios, Nikolaos Zavras, John Hager, Argyro Fassoulaki

Abstract

The effect of adding clonidine to local anesthetics for nerve or plexus blocks remains unclear. Most of the studies in adults have demonstrated the positive effects of clonidine on intra- and postoperative analgesia when used as an adjunctive agent or in some cases as a single to regional techniques. In the pediatric population, there are only few trials involving clonidine as an adjunct to regional anesthesia, and the analgesic benefits are not definite in this group of patients. The evidence concerning perineural administration of clonidine is so far inconclusive in children, as different types and volume of local anesthetic agents have been used in these studies. Moreover, the efficacy of regional anesthesia is largely affected by the operator's technique, accuracy and severity of operation.

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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Slovenia 1 1%
Unknown 72 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 12%
Student > Master 8 11%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 19 26%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 22 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 February 2012.
All research outputs
#15,241,801
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#653
of 1,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,554
of 247,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,474 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 247,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them