↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Single induction dose of etomidate versus other induction agents for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
38 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
Title
Single induction dose of etomidate versus other induction agents for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010225.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric A Bruder, Ian M Ball, Stacy Ridi, William Pickett, Corinne Hohl

Abstract

The use of etomidate for emergency airway interventions in critically ill patients is very common. In one large registry trial, etomidate was the most commonly used agent for this indication. Etomidate is known to suppress adrenal gland function, but it remains unclear whether or not this adrenal gland dysfunction affects mortality.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 243 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 21%
Other 28 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 10%
Researcher 22 9%
Other 51 21%
Unknown 46 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 111 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 10%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Psychology 9 4%
Other 24 10%
Unknown 56 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 01 September 2021.
All research outputs
#924,267
of 18,843,155 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,307
of 11,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,480
of 325,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,843,155 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 325,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.