↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Tuberculosis on the intensive care unit

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 2013
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
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
Clinical review: Tuberculosis on the intensive care unit
Published in
Critical Care, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12760
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guy Hagan, Nazim Nathani

Abstract

Rates of tuberculosis (TB) are increasing in most west European nations. Patients with TB can be admitted to an ICU for a variety of reasons, including respiratory failure, multiorgan failure and decreased consciousness associated with central nervous system disease. TB is a treatable disease but the mortality for patients admitted with TB to an ICU remains high. Management challenges exist in establishing a prompt diagnosis and administering effective treatment on the ICU with potentially poor gastric absorption and high rates of organ dysfunction and drug toxicity. In this review reasons for ICU admission, methods of achieving a confident diagnosis through direct and inferred methods, anti-tuberculosis treatment (including steroid and other adjuvant therapies) and specific management problems with particular relevance to the intensivist are discussed. The role of therapeutic drug monitoring, judicious use of alternative regimes in the context of toxicity or organ dysfunction and when to suspect paradoxical tuberculosis reactions are also covered. Diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms are proposed to guide ICU doctors in the management of this sometimes complicated disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 133 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Master 16 12%
Other 12 9%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 32 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 47%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 37 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 21 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,693,808
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,489
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,106
of 216,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#10
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 216,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.