| Title |
Is ketamine a lifesaving agent in childhood acute severe asthma?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s100389 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohamed A Hendaus, Fatima A Jomha, Ahmed H Alhammadi |
| Abstract |
Children with acute severe asthma exacerbation are at risk of developing respiratory failure. Moreover, conventional aggressive management might be futile in acute severe asthma requiring intubation and invasive ventilation. The aim of this review is to detail evidence on the use of ketamine in childhood asthma exacerbations. A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed, using different combinations of the following terms: ketamine, asthma, use, exacerbation, and childhood. In addition, we searched the references of the identified articles for additional articles. We then reviewed titles and included studies that were relevant to the topic of interest. Finally, the search was limited to studies published in English and Spanish from 1918 to June 2015. Due to the scarcity in the literature, we included all published articles. The literature reports conflicting results of ketamine use for acute severe asthma in children. Taking into consideration the relatively good safety profile of the drug, ketamine might be a reasonable option in the management of acute severe asthma in children who fail to respond to standard therapy. Furthermore, pediatricians and pediatric emergency clinicians administering ketamine should be knowledgeable about the unique actions of this drug and its potential side effects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 2 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 26% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |
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 22 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,664,275
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#65
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,903
of 407,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 407,552 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.