↓ Skip to main content

Causes of death after fluid bolus resuscitation: new insights from FEAST

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
28 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
Causes of death after fluid bolus resuscitation: new insights from FEAST
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-67
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Myburgh, Simon Finfer

Abstract

The Fluid Expansion as Supportive Therapy (FEAST study) was an extremely well conducted study that gave unexpected results. The investigators had reported that febrile children with impaired perfusion treated in low-income countries without access to intensive care are more likely to die if they receive bolus resuscitation with albumin or saline compared with no bolus resuscitation at all. In a secondary analysis of the trial, published in BMC Medicine, the authors found that increased mortality was evident in patients who presented with clinical features of severe shock in isolation or in conjunction with features of respiratory or neurological failure. The cause of excess deaths was primarily refractory shock and not fluid overload. These features are consistent with a potential cardiotoxic or ischemia-reperfusion injury following resuscitation with boluses of intravenous fluid. Although these effects may have been amplified by the absence of invasive monitoring, mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, the results provide compelling insights into the effects of intravenous fluid resuscitation and potential adverse effects that extend beyond the initial resuscitation period. These data add to the increasing body of literature about the safety and efficacy of intravenous resuscitation fluids, which may be applicable to management of other populations of critically ill patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 130 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 25 18%
Student > Master 22 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Researcher 10 7%
Other 34 25%
Unknown 20 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 69%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 25 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#928,000
of 24,024,220 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#638
of 3,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,698
of 199,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#21
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,024,220 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,662 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.8. 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 199,158 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.