↓ Skip to main content

Central venous oxygenation: when physiology explains apparent discrepancies

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Central venous oxygenation: when physiology explains apparent discrepancies
Published in
Critical Care, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0579-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierre Squara

Abstract

Central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) >70% or mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) >65% is recommended for both septic and non-septic patients. Although it is the task of experts to suggest clear and simple guidelines, there is a risk of reducing critical care to these simple recommendations. This article reviews the basic physiological and pathological features as well as the metrological issues that provide clear evidence that SvO2 and ScvO2 are adaptative variables with large inter-patient variability. This variability is exemplified in a modeled population of 1,000 standard ICU patients and in a real population of 100 patients including 15,860 measurements. In these populations, it can be seen how optimizing one to three of the four S(c)vO2 components homogenized the patients and yields a clear dependency with the fourth one. This explains the discordant results observed in large studies where cardiac output was increased up to predetermined S(c)vO2 thresholds following arterial oxygen hemoglobin saturation, total body oxygen consumption needs and hemoglobin optimization. Although a systematic S(c)vO2 goal-oriented protocol can be statistically profitable before ICU admission, appropriate intensive care mandates determination of the best compromise between S(c)vO2 and its four components, taking into account the specific constraints of each individual patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 112 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 23 20%
Other 13 11%
Student > Master 13 11%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 66%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Chemical Engineering 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 27 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 January 2024.
All research outputs
#4,152,244
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,969
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,775
of 273,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#56
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 273,201 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 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 68% of its contemporaries.