↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Hemodynamic monitoring in the intensive care unit

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Clinical review: Hemodynamic monitoring in the intensive care unit
Published in
Critical Care, January 2002
DOI 10.1186/cc1453
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joachim Boldt

Abstract

Since the beginning of modern anesthesia, in 1846, the anesthetist has relied on his natural senses to monitor the patient, aided more recently by simple technical devices such as the stethoscope. There has been a tremendous increase in the availability of monitoring devices in the past 30 years. Modern technology has provided a large number of sophisticated monitors and therapeutic instruments, particularly in the past decade. Most of these techniques have enhanced our understanding of the mechanism of the patients' decompensation and have helped to guide appropriate therapeutic interventions. As surgery and critical care medicine have developed rapidly, patient monitoring capability has become increasingly complex. The most important aspect in monitoring the critically ill patient is the detection of life-threatening derangements of vital functions. Aggressive marketing strategies have been promoted to monitor almost every aspect of the patient's status. However, these strategies are only telling us what is possible; they do not tell us whether they enhance patient safety, improve our therapy, or even improve patient outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 1%
United States 3 1%
Canada 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 186 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 36 18%
Student > Postgraduate 30 15%
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 8%
Professor 17 8%
Other 57 28%
Unknown 20 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 142 69%
Engineering 9 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Computer Science 2 <1%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 26 13%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 June 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,469
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,816
of 131,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 131,129 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.