↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Propofol versus thiopental sodium for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus.

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Propofol versus thiopental sodium for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus.
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009202.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prabhakar H, Bindra A, Singh GP, Kalaivani M, Prabhakar, Hemanshu, Bindra, Ashish, Singh, Gyaninder Pal, Kalaivani, Mani

Abstract

Failure to respond to antiepileptic drugs in uncontrolled seizure activity such as refractory status epilepticus (RSE) has led to the use of anaesthetic drugs. Coma is induced with anaesthetic drugs to achieve complete control of seizure activity. Thiopental sodium and propofol are popularly used for this purpose. Both agents have been found to be effective. However, there is substantial lack of evidence as to which of the two drugs is better in terms of clinical outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 43%
Other 2 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 57%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 November 2012.
All research outputs
#6,855,390
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,518
of 12,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,705
of 167,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#132
of 207 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 167,579 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 207 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.