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 |
Re-evaluating currently available data and suggestions for planning randomised controlled studies regarding the use of hydroxyethyl starch in critically ill patients - a multidisciplinary statement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc12845 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrick Meybohm, Hugo Van Aken, Andrea De Gasperi, Stefan De Hert, Giorgio Della Rocca, Armand RJ Girbes, Hans Gombotz, Bertrand Guidet, Walter Hasibeder, Markus W Hollmann, Can Ince, Matthias Jacob, Peter Kranke, Sibylle Kozek-Langenecker, Stephan Alexander Loer, Claude Martin, Martin Siegemund, Christian Wunder, Kai Zacharowski |
| Abstract |
Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is a commonly used colloid in critically ill patients. However, its safety has been questioned in recent studies and meta-analyses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 3 | 33% |
| France | 1 | 11% |
| Sao Tome and Principe | 1 | 11% |
| Japan | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 23 | 28% |
| Unknown | 12 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 64% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 May 2014.
All research outputs
#5,432,646
of 25,843,331 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,480
of 6,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,634
of 210,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#24
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,843,331 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,633 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 210,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.