↓ Skip to main content

Debate: Albumin administration should be avoided in the critically ill

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2000
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Debate: Albumin administration should be avoided in the critically ill
Published in
Critical Care, May 2000
DOI 10.1186/cc688
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas B Pulimood, Gilbert R Park

Abstract

The benefit of albumin administration in the critically ill patient is unproven. Epidemiological evidence suggests that there is an increase in death among patients with burns, hypoalbuminaemia, and hypotension treated with human albumin solution (HAS). In critical illness, hypoalbuminaemia is a result of transcapillary leak, decreased synthesis, large volume body fluid losses, and dilution caused by fluid resuscitation. When treating patients with hypoalbuminaemia, efforts must be centred around correction of the underlying disorder rather than reversal of hypoalbuminaemia. Problems with using albumin arise because it is an expensive blood product, and can result in systemic changes that include cardiovascular, haematological, renal, pulmonary, and immunological effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Indonesia 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Romania 1 1%
Unknown 89 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 13%
Other 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 28 30%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 61%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 23 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 March 2019.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,210
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,722
of 40,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 40,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them