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 |
High-dose intravenous selenium does not improve clinical outcomes in the critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1529-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William Manzanares, Margot Lemieux, Gunnar Elke, Pascal L. Langlois, Frank Bloos, Daren K. Heyland |
| Abstract |
Selenium (Se) is an essential trace element with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory effects. So far, several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that parenteral Se may improve clinical outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Since publication of our previous systematic review and meta-analysis on antioxidants in the ICU, reports of several trials have been published, including the largest RCT on Se therapy. The purpose of the present systematic review was to update our previous data on intravenous (IV) Se in the critically ill. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included RCTs with parallel groups comparing parenteral Se as single or combined therapy with placebo. Potential trials were evaluated according to specific eligibility criteria, and two reviewers abstracted data from original trials in duplicate independently. Overall mortality was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes were infections, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, ventilator days, and new renal dysfunction. A total of 21 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. When the data from these trials were aggregated, IV Se had no effect on mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.98, 95 % CI 0.90-1.08, P = 0.72, heterogeneity I (2) = 0 %). In addition, when the results of ten trials in which researchers reported on infections were statistically aggregated, there was no significant treatment effect of parenteral Se (RR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.88-1.02, P = 0.15, I (2) = 0 %). There was no positive or negative effect of Se therapy on ICU and hospital LOS, renal function, or ventilator days. In critically ill patients, IV Se as monotherapy does not improve clinical outcomes. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| Singapore | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 22% |
| Unknown | 22 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 41% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,119,031
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,963
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,385
of 320,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#79
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
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 is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 320,674 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.