↓ Skip to main content

Fluid therapy in critical illness

Overview of attention for article published in Extreme Physiology & Medicine, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Fluid therapy in critical illness
Published in
Extreme Physiology & Medicine, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/2046-7648-3-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark R Edwards, Michael G Mythen

Abstract

Major surgery and critical illnesses such as sepsis and trauma all disturb normal physiological fluid handling. Intravenous fluid therapy for resuscitation and fluid maintenance is a central part of medical care during these conditions, yet the evidence base supporting practice in this area lacks answers to a number of important questions. Recent research developments include a refinement of our knowledge of the endothelial barrier structure and function and a focus on the potential harm that may be associated with intravenous fluid therapy. Here, we briefly describe the contemporary view of fluid physiology and how this may be disrupted by pathological processes. The important themes in critical illness fluid research are discussed, with a particular focus on two emerging ideas: firstly, that individualising fluid treatment to the patient, their underlying disease state and the phase of that illness may be key to improving clinical outcomes using fluid interventions and, secondly, that fluids should be considered to be drugs, with specific indications and contraindications, dose ranges and potential toxicities.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Romania 1 1%
Unknown 90 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 18%
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Postgraduate 12 13%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 72%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Chemical Engineering 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 14 15%
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 15 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,201,088
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Extreme Physiology & Medicine
#77
of 106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,712
of 252,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Extreme Physiology & Medicine
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 252,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.