↓ Skip to main content

Seven unconfirmed ideas to improve future ICU practice

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 (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Seven unconfirmed ideas to improve future ICU practice
Published in
Critical Care, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1904-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

John J. Marini, Daniel De Backer, Can Ince, Mervyn Singer, Frank Van Haren, Martin Westphal, Paul Wischmeyer

Abstract

With imprecise definitions, inexact measurement tools, and flawed study execution, our clinical science often lags behind bedside experience and simply documents what appear to be the apparent faults or validity of ongoing practices. These impressions are later confirmed, modified, or overturned by the results of the next trial. On the other hand, insights that stem from the intuitions of experienced clinicians, scientists and educators-while often neglected-help place current thinking into proper perspective and occasionally point the way toward formulating novel hypotheses that direct future research. Both streams of information and opinion contribute to progress. In this paper we present a wide-ranging set of unproven 'out of the mainstream' ideas of our FCCM faculty, each with a defensible rationale and holding clear implications for altering bedside management. Each proposition was designed deliberately to be provocative so as to raise awareness, stimulate new thinking and initiate lively dialog.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 17%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Other 23 28%
Unknown 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 21 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 10 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,142,388
of 25,410,626 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,899
of 6,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,497
of 449,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#58
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,410,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,561 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 449,042 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.