↓ Skip to main content

Advancing critical care: time to kiss the right frog

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Advancing critical care: time to kiss the right frog
Published in
Critical Care, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc11501
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mervyn Singer

Abstract

The greatest advances in critical care over the past two decades have been achieved through doing less to the patient. We have learnt through salutary experience that our burgeoning Master-of-the-Universe capabilities and the oh-so-obvious stratagems instilled in us from youth were often ineffective or even deleterious. This re-education process, however, is far from complete. We are now rightly agonizing over the need for better characterization of pathophysiology, earlier identification of disease processes and a more directed approach to therapeutic intervention. We need to delineate the point at which intrinsic and protective adaptation ends and true harmful pathology begins, and how our iatrogenic meddling either helps or hinders. We need to improve trial design in the heterogeneous populations we treat, and to move away from syndromic fixations that, while offering convenience, have generally proved counterproductive. Importantly, we need to discover a far more holistic approach to patient care, evolving from the prevailing overmedicalized, number-crunching perspective towards a true multidisciplinary effort that embraces psychological as well as physiological well-being, with appropriate pharmacological minimization or supplementation. Complacency, with an unfair apportion of blame on the patient for not getting better, is the biggest threat to continued improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 43 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Lecturer 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Other 13 28%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 51%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 9 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,970
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,858
of 208,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#142
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 208,477 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.