↓ Skip to main content

Year in review 2012: Critical Care - respiratory infections

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Year in review 2012: Critical Care - respiratory infections
Published in
Critical Care, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12773
Pubmed ID
Authors

Girish B Nair, Michael S Niederman

Abstract

Over the last two decades, considerable progress has been made in the understanding of disease mechanisms and infection control strategies related to infections, particularly pneumonia, in critically ill patients. Patient-centered and preventative strategies assume paramount importance in this era of limited health-care resources, in which effective targeted therapy is required to achieve the best outcomes. Risk stratification using severity scores and inflammatory biomarkers is a promising strategy for identifying sick patients early during their hospital stay. The emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens is becoming a major hurdle in intensive care units. Cooperation, education, and interaction between multiple disciplines in the intensive care unit are required to limit the spread of resistant pathogens and to improve care. In this review, we summarize findings from major publications over the last year in the field of respiratory infections in critically ill patients, putting an emphasis on a newer understanding of pathogenesis, use of biomarkers, and antibiotic stewardship and examining new treatment options and preventive strategies.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Unknown 80 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 24 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 24 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 November 2013.
All research outputs
#6,740,287
of 25,368,786 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,788
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,857
of 315,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#38
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,368,786 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,286 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 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 61% of its contemporaries.