↓ Skip to main content

Use of propofol as an anesthetic and its efficacy on some hematological values of ornamental fish Carassius auratus

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Use of propofol as an anesthetic and its efficacy on some hematological values of ornamental fish Carassius auratus
Published in
SpringerPlus, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-2-76
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hosna GholipourKanani, Samaneh Ahadizadeh

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the level of anesthesia attained in Carassius auratus using a propofol bath administration and using values of haematological profile of blood and examinations, to assess the effects of the fish exposure to that anaesthetic. Acute toxicity values of propofol for gold fish were found 96 h LC50 6.353 mg/L, 96 h LC1 2.966 mg/L and 96 h LC99 13.609 mg/L. Time to induce anesthesia in propofol experiment was significantly higher than Clove oil (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in recovery time between the experiments. No significant decrease was found in Total RBC, WBC, HCT, MCH, MCV and leukogram indices (p > 0.05). MCHC (%) level of propofol experiment (13.93 ± 1.36) showed significant (p < 0.05) decrease than Clove oil anesthesia (94.95 ± 24.50) and control (62.46 ± 21.90). Hb(g/dl) content (5.20 ± 0.73) showed decrease in propofol exposure compared with control (15.41 ± 4.76) and clove oil experiment (25.39 ± 5.73) (p < 0.05).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Romania 1 2%
Unknown 43 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Researcher 7 16%
Other 3 7%
Professor 2 5%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 27%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 20%
Environmental Science 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 5 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,746,859
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#834
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,630
of 194,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#41
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 194,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 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 62% of its contemporaries.