↓ Skip to main content

How to approach and treat viral infections in ICU patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
How to approach and treat viral infections in ICU patients
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-14-321
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theodoros Kelesidis, Ioannis Mastoris, Aliki Metsini, Sotirios Tsiodras

Abstract

Patients with severe viral infections are often hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) and recent studies underline the frequency of viral detection in ICU patients. Viral infections in the ICU often involve the respiratory or the central nervous system and can cause significant morbidity and mortality especially in immunocompromised patients. The mainstay of therapy of viral infections is supportive care and antiviral therapy when available. Increased understanding of the molecular mechanisms of viral infection has provided great potential for the discovery of new antiviral agents that target viral proteins or host proteins that regulate immunity and are involved in the viral life cycle. These novel treatments need to be further validated in animal and human randomized controlled studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 22 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 26 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,551,965
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#383
of 7,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,258
of 365,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#6
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 365,958 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 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.