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 |
Viscoelastic testing for hepatic surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis—a protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0326-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kate Elizabeth McCrossin, David Edmund Piers Bramley, Elizabeth Hessian, Evelyn Hutcheon, Georgina Imberger |
| Abstract |
Viscoelastic tests, including thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), provide a global assessment of haemostatic function at the point of care. The use of a TEG or ROTEM system to guide blood product administration has been shown in some surgical settings to reduce transfusion requirements. The aim of this review is to evaluate all published evidence regarding viscoelastic testing in the setting of hepatic surgery. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify randomised controlled trials examining the use of viscoelastic testing for hepatic surgery. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts of studies identified and will independently extract data. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. A meta-analysis will be conducted if feasible. Viscoelastic devices such as TEG and ROTEM are increasingly available to clinicians as a bedside test. Patients undergoing hepatic surgery have a significant risk of blood loss and coagulopathy requiring transfusion. Theoretical benefits of use of a TEG or ROTEM system in the hepatic surgical setting include a rationalisation of blood products, a reduction in transfusion-related side effects, an improvement in patient outcomes including mortality, and a reduction in cost. This systematic review will summarise the current evidence regarding the use of viscoelastic testing for hepatic surgery. PROSPERO CRD42016036732. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 43% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 71% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 25% |
| Researcher | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 47% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,777,586
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,351
of 2,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,189
of 344,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#24
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. 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 344,885 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.