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 |
Hemodynamic monitoring in the era of evidence-based medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1534-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bernd Saugel, Manu L. N. G. Malbrain, Azriel Perel |
| Abstract |
Hemodynamic instability frequently occurs in critically ill patients. Pathophysiological rationale suggests that hemodynamic monitoring (HM) may identify the presence and causes of hemodynamic instability and therefore may allow targeting therapeutic approaches. However, there is a discrepancy between this pathophysiological rationale to use HM and a paucity of formal evidence (as defined by the strict criteria of evidence-based medicine (EBM)) for its use. In this editorial, we discuss that this paucity of formal evidence that HM can improve patient outcome may be explained by both the shortcomings of the EBM methodology in the field of intensive care medicine and the shortcomings of HM itself. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 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 | 12 | 14% |
| Spain | 7 | 8% |
| United States | 6 | 7% |
| Mexico | 5 | 6% |
| Malaysia | 3 | 4% |
| Argentina | 3 | 4% |
| Belgium | 2 | 2% |
| Chile | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 53 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 22 | 26% |
| Scientists | 7 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 14 | 20% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 21 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 21 March 2018.
All research outputs
#804,619
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#579
of 6,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,517
of 425,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#7
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 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 6,613 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 425,263 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 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.