↓ Skip to main content

Efficiency and safety of inhalative sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to an intravenous sedation concept with propofol in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled…

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Efficiency and safety of inhalative sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to an intravenous sedation concept with propofol in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-13-135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jens Soukup, Antje Selle, Andreas Wienke, Jörg Steighardt, Nana-Maria Wagner, Patrick Kellner

Abstract

State of the art sedation concepts on intensive care units (ICU) favor propofol for a time period of up to 72 h and midazolam for long-term sedation. However, intravenous sedation is associated with complications such as development of tolerance, insufficient sedation quality, gastrointestinal paralysis, and withdrawal symptoms including cognitive deficits. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether sevoflurane as a volatile anesthetic technically implemented by the anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) may provide advantages regarding 'weaning time', efficiency, and patient's safety when compared to standard intravenous sedation employing propofol.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 19%
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 19 25%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 10 13%

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 29 September 2013.
All research outputs
#6,799,549
of 12,547,386 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,750
of 3,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,757
of 122,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,547,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 122,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.