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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pro/con debate: In patients who are potential candidates for organ donation after cardiac death, starting medications and/or interventions for the sole purpose of making the organs more viable is an acceptable practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, April 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc5711 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jason Phua, Tow Keang Lim, David A Zygun, Christopher J Doig |
| Abstract |
Several hospitals have been developing programmes for organ donation after cardiac death. Such programmes offer options for organ donation to patients who do not meet brain-death criteria but wish to donate their organs after withdrawal of life-support. These programmes also increase the available organ pool at a time when demand exceeds supply. Given that potential donors are managed in intensive care units, intensivists will be key components of these programmes. Donation after cardiac death clearly carries a number of important ethical issues with it. In the present issue of Critical Care two established groups debate the ethical acceptability of using medications/interventions in potential organ donors for the sole purpose of making the organs more viable. Such debates will be an increasingly common component of intensivists' future practice. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 5 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 65% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 November 2014.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#6,383
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,993
of 87,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#33
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 87,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.