The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A MIXTURE OF NALBUPHINE, AZAPERONE, AND MEDETOMIDINE FOR IMMOBILIZING RINGTAILS (BASSARISCUS ASTUTUS)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Wildlife Diseases, October 2023
|
| DOI | 10.7589/jwd-d-23-00006 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lindsay N. Somers, DeWaine H. Jackson, Katie M. Dugger, Julia D. Burco |
| Abstract |
We evaluated a combination of nalbuphine HCl (40 mg/mL), azaperone tartrate (10 mg/mL), and medetomidine HCl (10 mg/mL), a combination known as NAM or NalMed-A, in 23 ringtails (Bassariscus astutus) during 29 handling events for a radio-collaring study in southern Oregon, US, from August 2020 to March 2022. The combination was delivered to ringtails by hand injection at 0.075 mL NAM per estimated 1 kg body mass. The mean (± standard deviation, SD) dosage calculated post hoc was 3.366 (±0.724) mg/kg nalbuphine, 0.841 (±0.181) mg/kg medetomidine, and 0.841 (±0.181) mg/kg azaperone. All captured ringtails were effectively immobilized with a mean (SD) induction time of 13.24 (±3.57) min. The medetomidine and nalbuphine components were antagonized with a combination of atipamezole and naltrexone HCl with a mean (SD) recovery time of 2.48 (±1.94) min. This combination appeared to be safe and effective for immobilizing ringtails with a low volume dose, smooth antagonism, and rapid recovery. In addition, NAM does not contain any drugs that are US Drug Enforcement scheduled, which makes it useful for immobilization procedures by wildlife professionals in the US. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 2 | 40% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 40% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
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 20 October 2023.
All research outputs
#22,778,604
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#1,661
of 1,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,168
of 357,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Wildlife Diseases
#16
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 357,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.