↓ Skip to main content

Integrating sepsis management recommendations into clinical care guidelines for district hospitals in resource-limited settings: the necessity to augment new guidelines with future research

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Integrating sepsis management recommendations into clinical care guidelines for district hospitals in resource-limited settings: the necessity to augment new guidelines with future research
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-107
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shevin T Jacob, Matthew Lim, Patrick Banura, Satish Bhagwanjee, Julian Bion, Allen C Cheng, Hillary Cohen, Jeremy Farrar, Sandy Gove, Philip Hopewell, Christopher C Moore, Cathy Roth, T Eoin West

Abstract

Several factors contribute to the high mortality attributed to severe infections in resource-limited settings. While improvements in survival and processes of care have been made in high-income settings among patients with severe conditions, such as sepsis, guidelines necessary for achieving these improvements may lack applicability or have not been tested in resource-limited settings. The World Health Organization's recent publication of the Integrated Management of Adolescent and Adult Illness District Clinician Manual provides details on how to optimize management of severely ill, hospitalized patients in such settings, including specific guidance on the management of patients with septic shock and respiratory failure without shock. This manuscript provides the context, process and underpinnings of these sepsis guidelines. In light of the current deficits in care and the limitations associated with these guidelines, the authors propose implementing these standardized best practice guidelines while using them as a foundation for sepsis research undertaken in, and directly relevant to, resource-limited settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 76 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 19%
Other 11 14%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 19 24%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 59%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 12 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,231,692
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,393
of 3,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,019
of 199,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#66
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 199,225 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.