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 |
Purification methods: a way to treat severe acute inflammation related to sepsis?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc12757 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Claire Lukaszewicz, Didier Payen |
| Abstract |
After numerous negative randomized trials testing drugs for severe sepsis and/or septic shock, the blood purification approach remains one possibility. Many techniques have been proposed, having in common the goal to eliminate blood and/or plasma factors, supposed to play a negative role in outcomes. Among these, high dose of hemofiltration, high volume hemofiltration, high permeability hemofiltration and specific or non-specific hemoperfusion or hemoadsorption have been proposed. Until now, a poor level of proof has been published, questioning the pertinence of such a strategy. To have a chance to succeed, immune monitoring has to be performed to select suitable patients regarding their immune status, the intensity of inflammation and their cellular function. Because of the potential interaction with mediators and cell capture, Rimmelé and colleagues published the results obtained with an in vitro set up, testing different adsorption cartridges in comparison to hemofiltration. They nicely confirmed the complex impact on mediator levels and cell capture and phenotype. This is certainly a more systematic approach to better understand the action of such adsorbing cartridges, which has to be developed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 28% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 76% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 September 2015.
All research outputs
#15,091,901
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,971
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,176
of 209,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#66
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 209,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.