↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intravenous lidocaine for the treatment of background or procedural burn pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 148 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 143 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 12 8%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 39 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Psychology 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 50 34%

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
#5,420,519
of 20,543,859 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,492
of 12,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,457
of 250,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#166
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,543,859 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 250,142 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.