↓ Skip to main content

Termination-of-resuscitation rule for emergency department physicians treating out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: an observational cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Termination-of-resuscitation rule for emergency department physicians treating out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: an observational cohort study
Published in
Critical Care, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc13058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshikazu Goto, Tetsuo Maeda, Yumiko Nakatsu Goto

Abstract

The 2010 cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines recommend emergency medical services (EMS) personnel consider prehospital termination-of-resuscitation (TOR) rules for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) following basic life support and/or advanced life support efforts in the field. However, the rate of implementation of international TOR rules is still low. Here, we aimed to develop and validate a new TOR rule for emergency department physicians to replace the international TOR rules for EMS personnel in the field. This rule aims to guide physicians in deciding whether to withhold further resuscitation attempts or terminate on-going resuscitation immediately after patient arrival.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Unknown 106 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 18%
Other 15 14%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 26 24%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 26 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,202,287
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,616
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,796
of 224,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#26
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 59% 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 224,599 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 103 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 74% of its contemporaries.