↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Tramadol for postoperative pain treatment in children

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
Title
Tramadol for postoperative pain treatment in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009574.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Schnabel, Sylvia U Reichl, Christine Meyer-Frießem, Peter K Zahn, Esther Pogatzki-Zahn

Abstract

According to current recommendations a multimodal approach is believed to be the gold standard for postoperative pain treatment in children. However, several surveys in the last few years demonstrated that postoperative pain in children is still a serious problem, mainly because opioids are avoided. One of the reasons for this is the fear of severe adverse events following opioid administration. Tramadol is a weak mu-opioid agonist and inhibits reuptake of noradrenaline and serotonin (5HT). Because of a relatively wide therapeutic window and a ceiling effect with a lower risk for severe adverse events (for example respiratory depression) tramadol is a widely used opioid in children. However, the exact efficacy and occurrence of adverse events following tramadol (in comparison with placebo or other opioids) for postoperative pain treatment in children and adolescents are currently not clear.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 20%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Psychology 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 40 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,758,229
of 17,692,737 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,234
of 11,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,897
of 229,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#114
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,692,737 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 229,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.