↓ Skip to main content

Conventional or physicochemical approach in intensive care unit patients with metabolic acidosis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2003
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Conventional or physicochemical approach in intensive care unit patients with metabolic acidosis
Published in
Critical Care, May 2003
DOI 10.1186/cc2184
Pubmed ID
Authors

MAM Moviat, FMP van Haren, JG van der Hoeven

Abstract

Metabolic acidosis is the most frequent acid-base disorder in the intensive care unit. The optimal analysis of the underlying mechanisms is unknown. To compare the conventional approach with the physicochemical approach in quantifying complicated metabolic acidosis in patients in the intensive care unit. We included 50 consecutive patients with a metabolic acidosis (standard base excess < or = -5). We measured sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, lactate, creatinine, urea, phosphate, albumin, pH, and arterial carbon dioxide and oxygen tensions in every patient. We then calculated HCO3-, the base excess, the anion gap, the albumin-corrected anion gap, the apparent strong ion difference, the effective strong ion difference and the strong ion gap. Most patients had multiple underlying mechanisms explaining the metabolic acidosis. Unmeasured strong anions were present in 98%, hyperchloremia was present in 80% and elevated lactate levels were present in 62% of patients. Calculation of the anion gap was not useful for the detection of hyperlactatemia. There was an excellent relation between the strong ion gap and the albumin-corrected and lactate-corrected anion gap (r2 = 0.934), with a bias of 1.86 and a precision of 0.96. Multiple underlying mechanisms are present in most intensive care unit patients with a metabolic acidosis. These mechanisms are reliably determined by measuring the lactate-corrected and albumin-corrected anion gap. Calculation of the more time-consuming strong ion gap according to Stewart is therefore unnecessary.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Romania 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 84 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 18%
Student > Postgraduate 15 17%
Professor 10 11%
Researcher 10 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 9%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 9 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 81%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Chemistry 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 9 10%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#6,383
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,607
of 54,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 54,887 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.