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 |
Management of pulmonary vasodilator therapy in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension during critical illness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0523-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katie M Muzevich, Hadi Chohan, Daniel C Grinnan |
| Abstract |
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is commonly treated with pulmonary arteriolar vasodilator therapy. When a patient on PAH medication is admitted to intensive care, determining how to manage their medication during the critical illness is often complicated. There may be considerations related to the inability to take medication by mouth, related to acute renal failure or acute liver injury, related to altered mental status or delirium, or related to hypotension and bacteremia. Decisions of how to manage these medications can have a major impact on the patient's clinical course. Presently, provider experience is the major tool in navigating the decisions regarding these medications. In this review, we offer our recommendations of how to manage PAH patients with critical illness who are on PAH medications. These recommendations include how to deliver medications via feeding tubes, how to dose medications in the setting of acute renal failure or acute liver failure, and how to manage medications during hypotension or when a tunneled catheter needs to be removed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 2 | 29% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Italy | 1 | 14% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Librarian | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 63% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 August 2019.
All research outputs
#7,047,954
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,932
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,611
of 267,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#61
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
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 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 267,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.