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 |
Prehospital intravenous access and fluid resuscitation in severe sepsis: an observational cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0533-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher W Seymour, Colin R Cooke, Susan R Heckbert, John A Spertus, Clifton W Callaway, Christian Martin-Gill, Donald M Yealy, Thomas D Rea, Derek C Angus |
| Abstract |
IntroductionPrompt treatment of severe sepsis in the Emergency Department reduces deaths, but the role of prehospital fluid resuscitation is unknown. We sought to determine the risk-adjusted association between prehospital fluid administration and hospital mortality among emergency medical services (EMS) patients admitted with severe sepsis.MethodsProspective, observational study of patients hospitalized with severe sepsis on admission among 45,394 adult EMS encounters taken to 15 hospitals from 11/2009 to 12/2010 by a two-tier EMS system in King County, Washington. The region mandated recording of prehospital intravenous catheter and fluid administration in prehospital records, along with detailed demographic, incident, physiologic, and hospital adjustment variables. We determined the effect of prehospital intravenous catheter or fluid versus no catheter or fluid on all-cause mortality using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf all encounters, 1,350 met criteria for severe sepsis on admission, of whom 205 (15%) died by hospital discharge, 312 (23%) received prehospital intravenous fluid, 90 (7%) received a prehospital catheter alone and 948 (70%) did not receive catheter or fluid. EMS administered a median prehospital fluid volume of 500 mL (interquartile range (IQR): 200, 1000 mL). In adjusted models, the administration of any prehospital fluid was associated with reduced hospital mortality (OR¿=¿0.46; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.88; P¿=¿0.02) compared to no prehospital fluid. The odds of hospital mortality were also lower among severe sepsis patients treated with prehospital intravenous catheter alone (OR¿=¿0.3; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.57; P <0.01).ConclusionsIn a population-based study, the administration of prehospital fluid and placement of intravenous access were associated with decreased odds of hospital mortality compared with no prehospital catheter or fluid. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 17 | 23% |
| United States | 14 | 19% |
| Canada | 5 | 7% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Ireland | 2 | 3% |
| Guyana | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 30 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 45 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 22 | 30% |
| Scientists | 6 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 153 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 19% |
| Other | 17 | 11% |
| Researcher | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 9% |
| Other | 41 | 26% |
| Unknown | 26 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 91 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. 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 28 February 2019.
All research outputs
#672,783
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#451
of 6,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,751
of 264,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#4
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 264,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.