↓ Skip to main content

Year in review 2011: Critical Care - infection

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Year in review 2011: Critical Care - infection
Published in
Critical Care, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11421
Pubmed ID
Abstract

ABSTRACT: There is an ever-growing importance for critical assessment of benefits and harms of various strategies with regards to antibiotic stewardship, infection control, molecular detection of pathogens and adequate treatment of multidrug-resistant organisms in ICUs. Ongoing financial constraints globally, changing demographics with an increasing and aging population and the slow introduction of new antibiotics make the utilisation of the best available evidence and goal-directed strategies essential in the ICU setting. This review will summarise findings from some of the recent major publications in the area of infectious diseases with emphasis on the role of behaviour change strategies for infection control purposes, the role of biomarkers such as C-reactive protein and procalcitonin, and the impact of molecular diagnostics in clinical decision-making. Furthermore, we will update readers on some recent findings in relation to invasive fungal infections, community-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia in ICU patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 85 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 19%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 24 27%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 56%
Engineering 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 18 20%

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 26 January 2013.
All research outputs
#1,993,364
of 4,509,149 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,434
of 2,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,138
of 281,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#80
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,509,149 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,511 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 281,273 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.