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 |
Utility of thromboelastography and/or thromboelastometry in adults with sepsis: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc13721 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcella C Müller, Joost CM Meijers, Margreeth B Vroom, Nicole P Juffermans |
| Abstract |
Coagulation abnormalities are frequent in sepsis. Conventional coagulation assays however, have several limitations. There is a surge of interest in the use of point of care tests to diagnose hypo- and hypercoagulability in sepsis. We performed a systematic review of available literature to establish the value of rotational thromboelastography (TEG(R)) and thromboelastometry (ROTEM(R)) compared to standard coagulation tests to detect hyper- or hypocoagulability in sepsis patients. Furthermore the value of TEG(R)/ROTEM(R) to identify sepsis patients likely to benefit from therapies that interfere with the coagulation system was assessed. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| Denmark | 2 | 29% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 178 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 30 | 16% |
| Other | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 46 | 24% |
| Unknown | 32 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 115 | 61% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 7 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Unknown | 40 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,954,155
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,750
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,604
of 327,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#11
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 327,768 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 144 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.