↓ Skip to main content

Detailing the cardiovascular profile in shock patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
55 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 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
Detailing the cardiovascular profile in shock patients
Published in
Critical Care, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1908-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel De Backer

Abstract

Evaluation of the cardiovascular profile of critically ill patients is one of the most important actions performed in critically ill patients. It allows recognition that the patient is in shock and characterization of the type of circulatory failure. This step is crucial to initiate supportive interventions and to cure the cause responsible for the development of shock. Evaluation of tissue perfusion allows identification of the patient insufficiently resuscitated and also to trigger therapeutic interventions. Monitoring tissue perfusion can be achieved by lactate, venoarterial gradients in PCO2, and central venous or mixed venous oxygen saturation. Ultimately, monitoring the microcirculation may help not only to identify alterations in tissue perfusion but also to identify the type of alterations: diffuse decrease in microvascular perfusion versus heterogeneity in the alterations, as in sepsis, with well perfused areas in close vicinity to poorly perfused areas. Regarding supportive therapy, a step-by-step approach is suggested, with fluid optimization followed by vasoactive support to preserve perfusion pressure and global and regional blood flows. The different variables should be integrated into decision and management pathways, and therapies adapted accordingly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 167 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 28 17%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Postgraduate 18 11%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 38 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 46 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 17 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,268,900
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,072
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,960
of 448,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#35
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 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 83% 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 448,935 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 90 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 61% of its contemporaries.