↓ Skip to main content

Intranasal fentanyl versus intravenous morphine in the emergency department treatment of severe painful sickle cell crises in children: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Intranasal fentanyl versus intravenous morphine in the emergency department treatment of severe painful sickle cell crises in children: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-13-74
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Joseph Barrett, John Cronin, Adrian Murphy, Siobhan McCoy, John Hayden, SinéadNic an Fhailí, Tim Grant, Abel Wakai, Corrina McMahon, Sean Walsh, Ronan O’Sullivan

Abstract

Children with sickle cell disease (SCD) frequently and unpredictably present to the emergency department (ED) with pain. The painful event is the hallmark acute clinical manifestation of SCD, characterised by sudden onset and is usually bony in origin. This study aims to establish if 1.5mcg/kg of intranasal fentanyl (INF; administered via a Mucosal Atomiser Device, MAD™) is non-inferior to intravenous morphine 0.1 mg/kg in severe SCD-associated pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 17%
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Psychology 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 29 25%