| Title |
A quest to increase safety of anesthetics by advancements in anesthesia monitoring: scientometric analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s81013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kamen V Vlassakov, Igor Kissin |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to assess progress in the field of anesthesia monitoring over the past 40 years using scientometric analysis. The following scientometric indexes were used: popularity indexes (general and specific), representing the proportion of articles on either a topic relative to all articles in the field of anesthetics (general popularity index, GPI) or the subfield of anesthesia monitoring (specific popularity index, SPI); index of change (IC), representing the degree of growth in publications on a topic from one period to the next; and index of expectations (IE), representing the ratio of the number of articles on a topic in the top 20 journals relative to the number of articles in all (>5,000) biomedical journals covered by PubMed. Publications on 33 anesthesia-monitoring topics were assessed. Our analysis showed that over the past 40 years, the rate of rise in the number of articles on anesthesia monitoring was exponential, with an increase of more than eleven-fold, from 296 articles over the 5-year period 1974-1978 to 3,394 articles for 2009-2013. This rise profoundly exceeded the rate of rise of the number of articles on general anesthetics. The difference was especially evident with the comparison of the related GPIs: stable growth of the GPI for anesthesia monitoring vs constant decline in the GPI for general anesthetics. By the 2009-2013 period, among specific monitoring topics introduced after 1980, the SPI index had a meaningful magnitude (≥1.5) in 9 of 24 topics: Bispectral Index (7.8), Transesophageal Echocardiography (4.2), Electromyography (2.8), Pulse Oximetry (2.4), Entropy (2.3), Train-of-four (2.3), Capnography (1.9), Pulse Contour (1.9), and Electrical Nerve Stimulation for neuromuscular monitoring (1.6). Only one of these topics (Pulse Contour) demonstrated (in 2009-2013) high values for both IC and IE indexes (76 and 16.9, respectively), indicating significant recent progress. We suggest that rapid growth in the field of anesthetic monitoring was one of the most important developments to compensate for the intrinsically low margins of safety of anesthetic agents. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 26% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 May 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,105
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,911
of 278,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#55
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 278,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.