| Title |
Intravenous versus inhalation anaesthesia for one-lung ventilation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006313.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Norma SP Módolo, Marília P Módolo, Marcos A Marton, Enilze Volpato, Vinícius Monteiro Arantes, Paulo do Nascimento Junior, Regina El Dib |
| Abstract |
This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008.The technique called one-lung ventilation can confine bleeding or infection to one lung, prevent rupture of a lung cyst or, more commonly, facilitate surgical exposure of the unventilated lung. During one-lung ventilation, anaesthesia is maintained either by delivering an inhalation anaesthetic to the ventilated lung or by infusing an intravenous anaesthetic. It is possible that the method chosen to maintain anaesthesia may affect patient outcomes. Inhalation anaesthetics may impair hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction (HPV) and increase intrapulmonary shunt and hypoxaemia. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 130 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 14% |
| Researcher | 15 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 20% |
| Unknown | 32 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 9% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 34 | 26% |
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 22 August 2013.
All research outputs
#14,172,390
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,385
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,418
of 194,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#260
of 323 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 194,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 323 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.