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 |
Adverse effects of small-volume red blood cell transfusions in the neonatal population
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-92 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amy Keir, Sanchita Pal, Marialena Trivella, Lani Lieberman, Jeannie Callum, Nadine Shehata, Simon Stanworth |
| Abstract |
Adverse transfusion reactions in the neonatal population are poorly understood and defined. The incidence and pattern of adverse effects due to red blood cell (RBC) transfusion are not well known, and there has been no systematic review of published adverse events. RBC transfusions continue to be linked to the development of morbidities unique to neonates, including chronic lung disease, retinopathy of prematurity, intraventricular haemorrhage and necrotising enterocolitis. Uncertainties about the exact nature of risks alongside benefits of RBC transfusion may contribute to evidence of widespread variation in neonatal RBC transfusion practice.Our review aims to describe clinical adverse effects attributed to small-volume (10-20 mL/kg) RBC transfusions and, where possible, their incidence rates in the neonatal population through the systematic identification of all relevant studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 35% |
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 06 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,303,896
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,585
of 1,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,151
of 235,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#28
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 235,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.