↓ Skip to main content

Physiology versus evidence-based guidance for critical care practice

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
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.
Title
Physiology versus evidence-based guidance for critical care practice
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/cc14725
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luciano Gattinoni, Eleonora Carlesso, Alessandro Santini

Abstract

Evidence based medicine is an attempt to optimize the medical decision process through methods primarily based on evidence coming from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials ("evidence-based medicine"), rather than on "clinical judgment" alone. The randomized trials are the cornerstones of this process. However, the randomized trials are just a method to prove or disprove a given hypothesis, which, in turn, derives from a general observation of the reality (premises or theories). In this paper we will examine some of the most recent randomized trials performed in Intensive Care, analyzing their premises, hypothesis and outcome. It is quite evident that when the premises are wrong or too vague the unavoidable consequences will be a negative outcome. We should pay when designing the trial an equal attention in defining premises and hypothesis that we pay for the trial conduction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 %
Italy 2 5%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 41 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 64%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 14 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,310,926
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,116
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,883
of 394,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#71
of 483 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 394,037 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 483 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.