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 |
The haemodynamic dilemma in emergency care: Is fluid responsiveness the answer? A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13049-017-0370-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammed H. Elwan, Ashraf Roshdy, Eman M. Elsharkawy, Salah M. Eltahan, Timothy J. Coats |
| Abstract |
Fluid therapy is a common and crucial treatment in the emergency department (ED). While fluid responsiveness seems to be a promising method to titrate fluid therapy, the evidence for its value in ED is unclear. We aim to synthesise the existing literature investigating fluid responsiveness in ED. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched for relevant peer-reviewed studies published from 1946 to present. A total of 249 publications were retrieved of which 22 studies underwent full-text review and eight relevant studies were identified. Only 3 studies addressed clinical outcomes - including 2 randomised controlled trials and one feasibility study. Five articles evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of fluid responsiveness techniques in ED. Due to marked heterogeneity, it was not possible to combine results in a meta-analysis. High quality, adequately powered outcome studies are still lacking, so the place of fluid responsiveness in ED remains undefined. Future studies should have standardisation of patient groups, the target response and the underpinning theoretic concept of fluid responsiveness. The value of a fluid responsiveness based fluid resuscitation protocol needs to be established in a clinical trial. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 9 | 39% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Vietnam | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 30% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,478,198
of 25,410,626 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#239
of 1,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,526
of 324,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#7
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,410,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 324,537 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.