↓ Skip to main content

The bloody mess of red blood cell transfusion

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2017
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 (91st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
The bloody mess of red blood cell transfusion
Published in
Critical Care, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1912-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susilo Chandra, Hrishikesh Kulkarni, Martin Westphal

Abstract

Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion might be life-saving in settings with acute blood loss, especially uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock. However, there appears to be a catch-22 situation reflected by the facts that preoperative anaemia represents an independent risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality, and that RBC transfusion might also contribute to adverse clinical outcomes. This dilemma is further complicated by the difficulty to define the "best" transfusion trigger and strategy. Since one size does obviously not fit all, a personalised approach is merited. Attempts should thus be made to critically reflect on the pros and cons of RBC transfusion in each individual patient. Patient blood management concepts including preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative optimisation strategies involving the intensive care unit are warranted and are likely to provide benefits for the patients and the healthcare system. In this context, it is important to consider that "simply" increasing the haemoglobin content, and in proportion oxygen delivery, may not necessarily contribute to a better outcome but potentially the contrary in the long term. The difficulty lies in identification of the patients who might eventually profit from RBC transfusion and to determine in whom a transfusion might be withheld without inducing harm. More robust clinical data providing long-term outcome data are needed to better understand in which patients RBC transfusion might be life-saving vs life-limiting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 19%
Student > Master 9 13%
Unspecified 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 51%
Unspecified 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 25 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,752,855
of 25,292,646 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,556
of 6,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,264
of 455,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#51
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,646 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 6,531 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 done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 455,455 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.