↓ Skip to main content

The haemodynamic dilemma in emergency care: Is fluid responsiveness the answer? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Other 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 13 28%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Unspecified 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 7 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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
#1,572,817
of 19,910,352 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#150
of 1,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,442
of 273,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,910,352 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 273,787 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them