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 |
Optimizing sedation in patients with acute brain injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1294-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mauro Oddo, Ilaria Alice Crippa, Sangeeta Mehta, David Menon, Jean-Francois Payen, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Giuseppe Citerio |
| Abstract |
Daily interruption of sedative therapy and limitation of deep sedation have been shown in several randomized trials to reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and hospital length of stay, and to improve the outcome of critically ill patients. However, patients with severe acute brain injury (ABI; including subjects with coma after traumatic brain injury, ischaemic/haemorrhagic stroke, cardiac arrest, status epilepticus) were excluded from these studies. Therefore, whether the new paradigm of minimal sedation can be translated to the neuro-ICU (NICU) is unclear. In patients with ABI, sedation has 'general' indications (control of anxiety, pain, discomfort, agitation, facilitation of mechanical ventilation) and 'neuro-specific' indications (reduction of cerebral metabolic demand, improved brain tolerance to ischaemia). Sedation also is an essential therapeutic component of intracranial pressure therapy, targeted temperature management and seizure control. Given the lack of large trials which have evaluated clinically relevant endpoints, sedative selection depends on the effect of each agent on cerebral and systemic haemodynamics. Titration and withdrawal of sedation in the NICU setting has to be balanced between the risk that interrupting sedation might exacerbate brain injury (e.g. intracranial pressure elevation) and the potential benefits of enhanced neurological function and reduced complications. In this review, we provide a concise summary of cerebral physiologic effects of sedatives and analgesics, the advantages/disadvantages of each agent, the comparative effects of standard sedatives (propofol and midazolam) and the emerging role of alternative drugs (ketamine). We suggest a pragmatic approach for the use of sedation-analgesia in the NICU, focusing on some practical aspects, including optimal titration and management of sedation withdrawal according to ABI severity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 71 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 15% |
| Spain | 7 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| France | 3 | 4% |
| Argentina | 3 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 3% |
| Colombia | 2 | 3% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 18% |
| Unknown | 23 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 48 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 20% |
| Scientists | 7 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 580 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pakistan | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 575 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 79 | 14% |
| Researcher | 66 | 11% |
| Other | 64 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 58 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 57 | 10% |
| Other | 115 | 20% |
| Unknown | 141 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 264 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 53 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 32 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 24 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 1% |
| Other | 48 | 8% |
| Unknown | 151 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 29 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,001,217
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#773
of 6,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,091
of 314,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#22
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,627 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 314,418 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.