↓ Skip to main content

Conservative fluid therapy in septic shock: an example of targeted therapeutic minimization

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Conservative fluid therapy in septic shock: an example of targeted therapeutic minimization
Published in
Critical Care, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0481-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Chen, Marin H Kollef

Abstract

Intravenous fluids (IVFs) represent a basic therapeutic intervention utilized in septic shock. Unfortunately, the optimal method for administering IVFs to maximize patient outcomes is unknown. A meta-analysis of four randomized trials of goal-directed therapy did not demonstrate a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio 0.609; 95% confidence interval 0.363 to 1.020; P = 0.059), whereas 18 trials with historical controls showed a significant increase in survival (odds ratio 0.580; 95% confidence interval 0.501 to 0.672; P < 0.0001). Based on these data, clinicians should be aware of the potential for harm due to the excessive administration of IVFs to patients with septic shock.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 4%
Belgium 1 2%
Mexico 1 2%
Unknown 41 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 9 20%
Other 7 16%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 71%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 7 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 24 August 2015.
All research outputs
#1,900,417
of 15,990,818 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,710
of 5,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,940
of 202,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#25
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,990,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
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 202,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.