↓ Skip to main content

Hydroxyethyl starch in severe sepsis: end of starch era?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 2013
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Hydroxyethyl starch in severe sepsis: end of starch era?
Published in
Critical Care, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12531
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos A Estrada, Raghavan Murugan

Abstract

EXPANDED ABSTRACT: CITATION: Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, Tenhunen J, Klemenzson G, Åneman A, Madsen KR, Møller MH, Elkjær JM, Poulsen LM, Bendtsen A, Winding R, Steensen M, Berezowicz P, Søe-Jensen P, Bestle M, Strand K, Wiis J, White JO, Thornberg KJ, Quist L, Nielsen J, Andersen LH, Holst LB, Thormar K, Kjældgaard AL, Fabritius ML, Mondrup F, Pott FC, Møller TP, Winkel P, Wetterslev J; 6S Trial Group; Scandinavian Critical Care Trials Group: Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer's acetate in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 2012, 367:124-34. BACKGROUND: Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is widely used for fluid resuscitation in ICUs, but its safety and efficacy have not been established in patients with severe sepsis. METHODS: OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of HES 130/0.4 compared with a balanced crystalloid solution on mortality and end-stage kidney failure in patients with severe sepsis. DESIGN: Multicenter, parallel-group, blinded, randomized clinical trial, in patients with severe sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with severe sepsis admitted to the ICU received fluid resuscitation with either 6% HES 130/0.42 (Tetraspan) or Ringer's acetate at a dose of up to 33 ml per kilogram of ideal body weight per day. RESULTS: Of the 804 patients who underwent randomization, 798 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 90 days after randomization, 201 of 398 patients (51%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 had died, as compared with 172 of 400 patients (43%) assigned to Ringer's acetate (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01 to 1.36; P = 0.03); 1 patient in each group had end-stage kidney failure. In the 90-day period, 87 patients (22%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 were treated with renal replacement therapy versus 65 patients (16%) assigned to Ringer's acetate (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.80; P = 0.04), and 38 patients (10%) and 25 patients (6%), respectively, had severe bleeding (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.94 to 2.48; P = 0.09). The results were supported by multivariate analyses, with adjustment for known risk factors for death or acute kidney injury at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe sepsis assigned to fluid resuscitation with HES 130/0.42 had an increased risk of death at day 90 and were more likely to require renal replacement therapy compared with those receiving Ringer's acetate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 82 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 17%
Other 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 20 23%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 63%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 18 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,262,161
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,038
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,375
of 208,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#40
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 208,880 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.