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 |
Perioperative liberal versus restrictive fluid strategies and postoperative outcomes: a systematic review and metanalysis on randomised-controlled trials in major abdominal elective surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, June 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-021-03629-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio Messina, Chiara Robba, Lorenzo Calabrò, Daniel Zambelli, Francesca Iannuzzi, Edoardo Molinari, Silvia Scarano, Denise Battaglini, Marta Baggiani, Giacomo De Mattei, Laura Saderi, Giovanni Sotgiu, Paolo Pelosi, Maurizio Cecconi |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 9% |
| Mexico | 5 | 9% |
| Brazil | 4 | 7% |
| Colombia | 3 | 5% |
| Japan | 2 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 23 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 46 | 84% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
| Scientists | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 21% |
| Unknown | 21 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 48% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 22 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,091,616
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#868
of 6,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,436
of 459,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#23
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,587 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 86% 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 459,786 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.