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 |
Pro/con ethics debate: When is dead really dead?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc3894 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leslie Whetstine, Stephen Streat, Mike Darwin, David Crippen |
| Abstract |
Contemporary intensive care unit (ICU) medicine has complicated the issue of what constitutes death in a life support environment. Not only is the distinction between sapient life and prolongation of vital signs blurred but the concept of death itself has been made more complex. The demand for organs to facilitate transplantation promotes a strong incentive to define clinical death in a manner that most effectively supplies that demand. We consider the problem of defining death in the ICU as a function of viable organ availability for transplantation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
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 August 2023.
All research outputs
#6,753,240
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,793
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,346
of 76,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#12
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 76,678 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.