↓ Skip to main content

Fitting a square peg into a round hole: are the current Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines feasible for Africa?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Fitting a square peg into a round hole: are the current Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines feasible for Africa?
Published in
Critical Care, February 2011
DOI 10.1186/cc9981
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shevin T Jacob, T Eoin West, Patrick Banura

Abstract

In their article, Baelani and colleagues surveyed anesthesia providers from African low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to evaluate whether or not the current Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines are feasible in such resource-constrained settings. The authors report that an alarmingly low percentage of hospitals have the capacity to implement the SSC guidelines in their entirety but a higher percentage are able to implement the majority of SSC guidelines and grade 1 recommendations. In reality, the probability of adherence to SSC guidelines for septic management is even lower than reported, given that the majority of sepsis management in African LMICs is likely performed by non-intensivists outside of intensive care units. Efforts to address the challenges of managing severely ill patients in LMICs have recently been taken on by the World Health Organization. After reviewing available evidence for sepsis management predominantly from high-income countries, a panel of experts developed a consensus-based strategy tailored for resource-limited settings. However, more research that can evaluate the challenges specific to sepsis management in LMICs and not currently addressed by the SSC guidelines is needed. Comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines combined with innovative approaches to sepsis management in LMICs are required to make a meaningful impact on worldwide sepsis survival.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mozambique 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 59 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 16%
Student > Postgraduate 8 13%
Student > Master 6 10%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 19 31%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 69%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 19%
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 27 March 2011.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#6,383
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,271
of 193,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#88
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 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 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 193,474 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 93 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.