| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 | 14 | 28% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 8% |
| Turkey | 3 | 6% |
| Japan | 2 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 24% |
| Scientists | 4 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 345 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 341 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 58 | 17% |
| Other | 35 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 8% |
| Researcher | 24 | 7% |
| Other | 66 | 19% |
| Unknown | 106 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 137 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 3% |
| Psychology | 11 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 30 | 9% |
| Unknown | 115 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 January 2023.
All research outputs
#967,178
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,905
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,389
of 359,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#41
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 359,244 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.