| Title |
Intravenous lidocaine for the treatment of background or procedural burn pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005622.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jason Wasiak, Patrick D Mahar, Siobhan K McGuinness, Anneliese Spinks, Stefan Danilla, Heather Cleland, Hannah B Tan |
| Abstract |
This is an update of the review on "Lidocaine for pain relief in burn injured patients" first published in Issue 3, 2007, and first updated in 2012. Pain is a major issue for people with many different types of wounds, in particular those people with burn injuries. Prompt, aggressive use of opioid analgesics such as morphine has been suggested as critical to avert the cycle of pain and anxiety, but adverse effects are encountered. It has been proposed that newer agents such as lidocaine could be effective in reducing pain and alleviating the escalating opioid dosage requirements in people with burn injury. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 165 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 11% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Researcher | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 15% |
| Unknown | 55 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 6% |
| Psychology | 7 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Unknown | 67 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 April 2020.
All research outputs
#6,959,709
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,078
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,798
of 268,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#173
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 268,310 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.