↓ Skip to main content

The diagnosis of sepsis revisited - a challenge for young medical scientists in the 21st century

Overview of attention for article published in Patient Safety in Surgery, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 212)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
The diagnosis of sepsis revisited - a challenge for young medical scientists in the 21st century
Published in
Patient Safety in Surgery, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1754-9493-8-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lawrence A Lynn

Abstract

In 1991, a well-meaning consensus group of thought leaders derived a simple definition for sepsis which required the breach of only a few static thresholds. More than 20 years later, this simple definition has calcified to become the gold standard for sepsis protocols and research. Yet sepsis clearly comprises a complex, dynamic, and relational distortion of human life. Given the profound scope of the loss of life worldwide, there is a need to disengage from the simple concepts of the past. There is an acute need to develop 21st century approaches which engage sepsis in its true form, as a complex, dynamic, and relational pattern of death.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 37 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Other 12 31%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 69%
Computer Science 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 18 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,018,593
of 20,555,893 outputs
Outputs from Patient Safety in Surgery
#12
of 212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,926
of 297,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Safety in Surgery
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,555,893 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 297,590 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.