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 |
Phenylephrine versus norepinephrine for initial hemodynamic support of patients with septic shock: a randomized, controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, November 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc7121 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea Morelli, Christian Ertmer, Sebastian Rehberg, Matthias Lange, Alessandra Orecchioni, Amalia Laderchi, Alessandra Bachetoni, Mariadomenica D'Alessandro, Hugo Van Aken, Paolo Pietropaoli, Martin Westphal |
| Abstract |
Previous findings suggest that a delayed administration of phenylephrine replacing norepinephrine in septic shock patients causes a more pronounced hepatosplanchnic vasoconstriction as compared with norepinephrine. Nevertheless, a direct comparison between the two study drugs has not yet been performed. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to investigate the effects of a first-line therapy with either phenylephrine or norepinephrine on systemic and regional hemodynamics in patients with septic shock. We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit in a university hospital. We enrolled septic shock patients (n = 32) with a mean arterial pressure below 65 mmHg despite adequate volume resuscitation. Patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either norepinephrine or phenylephrine infusion (n = 16 each) titrated to achieve a mean arterial pressure between 65 and 75 mmHg. Data from right heart catheterization, a thermodye dilution catheter, gastric tonometry, acid-base homeostasis, as well as creatinine clearance and cardiac troponin were obtained at baseline and after 12 hours. Differences within and between groups were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance for repeated measurements with group and time as factors. Time-independent variables were compared with one-way analysis of variance. No differences were found in any of the investigated parameters. The present study suggests there are no differences in terms of cardiopulmonary performance, global oxygen transport, and regional hemodynamics when phenylephrine was administered instead of norepinephrine in the initial hemodynamic support of septic shock. ClinicalTrial.gov NCT00639015. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Oman | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 183 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 11% |
| Researcher | 17 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 60 | 32% |
| Unknown | 33 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 110 | 58% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Unknown | 39 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 August 2020.
All research outputs
#3,138,739
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,599
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,758
of 180,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#3
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 180,292 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.