↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Rocuronium versus succinylcholine for rapid sequence induction intubation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2008
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
203 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
Title
Rocuronium versus succinylcholine for rapid sequence induction intubation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002788.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey J Perry, Jacques S Lee, Victoria AH Sillberg, George A Wells, Perry JJ, Lee JS, Sillberg VA, Wells GA, Perry, Jeffrey J, Lee, Jacques S, Sillberg, Victoria AH, Wells, George A

Abstract

Patients requiring emergency endotracheal intubation often require a rapid sequence induction (RSI) intubation technique to protect against aspiration or increased intracranial pressure, or to facilitate intubation. Succinylcholine is the most commonly used muscle relaxant because of its fast onset and short duration; unfortunately, it can have serious side effects. Rocuronium has been suggested as an alternative to succinylcholine for intubation. This meta-analysis is an update since our initial Cochrane systematic review in 2003.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 4 3%
Italy 2 1%
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 127 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 27 19%
Researcher 26 18%
Student > Postgraduate 23 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 8%
Student > Master 11 8%
Other 36 25%
Unknown 9 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 116 81%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 10 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,115,888
of 18,976,159 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,772
of 11,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,714
of 114,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,976,159 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 114,860 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.