↓ Skip to main content

The role of contact system in septic shock: the next target? An overview of the current evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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 role of contact system in septic shock: the next target? An overview of the current evidence
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40560-017-0228-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henrique Nicola

Abstract

Septic shock remains challenging to intensive care units worldwide, despite recent documented improvement in mortality over the years. Multiple new therapies have been attempted without success in large clinical trials. Evidence concerning the role of the contact system and bradykinin on septic shock physiological manifestations is shown by this article. The objective of the study is to review the current evidence linking contact system activation and septic shock, as well as efficacy of available therapies targeting this pathophysiological pathway and to evaluate the potential of further researching the matter. Multiple animal studies are already available and suggestive of a meaningful role of contact system activation on septic shock. However, human trials are still scarce, and the ones available are not enough to establish such a strong connection. Furthermore, attempted therapies have been successful across multiple species, but not as much in humans. Therefore, contact system and septic shock relationship remains plentiful in questions to be answered in the coming years or decades. Whether the contact system is not as relevant in humans as it is in animals or there is only lack of evidence remains to be explained. The subject is an attractive open field for further research aiming to aid in tackling such a burdensome condition.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 16%
Professor 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 11%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 July 2017.
All research outputs
#10,124,082
of 11,409,342 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#221
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,699
of 260,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#27
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,409,342 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 260,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.