↓ Skip to main content

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
293 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 Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016)
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40560-017-0270-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Osamu Nishida, Hiroshi Ogura, Moritoki Egi, Seitaro Fujishima, Yoshiro Hayashi, Toshiaki Iba, Hitoshi Imaizumi, Shigeaki Inoue, Yasuyuki Kakihana, Joji Kotani, Shigeki Kushimoto, Yoshiki Masuda, Naoyuki Matsuda, Asako Matsushima, Taka-aki Nakada, Satoshi Nakagawa, Shin Nunomiya, Tomohito Sadahiro, Nobuaki Shime, Tomoaki Yatabe, Yoshitaka Hara, Kei Hayashida, Yutaka Kondo, Yuka Sumi, Hideto Yasuda, Kazuyoshi Aoyama, Takeo Azuhata, Kent Doi, Matsuyuki Doi, Naoyuki Fujimura, Ryota Fuke, Tatsuma Fukuda, Koji Goto, Ryuichi Hasegawa, Satoru Hashimoto, Junji Hatakeyama, Mineji Hayakawa, Toru Hifumi, Naoki Higashibeppu, Katsuki Hirai, Tomoya Hirose, Kentaro Ide, Yasuo Kaizuka, Tomomichi Kan’o, Tatsuya Kawasaki, Hiromitsu Kuroda, Akihisa Matsuda, Shotaro Matsumoto, Masaharu Nagae, Mutsuo Onodera, Tetsu Ohnuma, Kiyohiro Oshima, Nobuyuki Saito, So Sakamoto, Masaaki Sakuraya, Mikio Sasano, Norio Sato, Atsushi Sawamura, Kentaro Shimizu, Kunihiro Shirai, Tetsuhiro Takei, Muneyuki Takeuchi, Kohei Takimoto, Takumi Taniguchi, Hiroomi Tatsumi, Ryosuke Tsuruta, Naoya Yama, Kazuma Yamakawa, Chizuru Yamashita, Kazuto Yamashita, Takeshi Yoshida, Hiroshi Tanaka, Shigeto Oda

Abstract

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2016 (J-SSCG 2016), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in February 2017 and published in the Journal of JSICM, [2017; Volume 24 (supplement 2)] 10.3918/jsicm.24S0001 and Journal of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine [2017; Volume 28, (supplement 1)] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jja2.2017.28.issue-S1/issuetoc.This abridged English edition of the J-SSCG 2016 was produced with permission from the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine and the Japanese Society for Intensive Care Medicine. Members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine were selected and organized into 19 committee members and 52 working group members. The guidelines were prepared in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service (Minds) creation procedures. The Academic Guidelines Promotion Team was organized to oversee and provide academic support to the respective activities allocated to each Guideline Creation Team. To improve quality assurance and workflow transparency, a mutual peer review system was established, and discussions within each team were open to the public. Public comments were collected once after the initial formulation of a clinical question (CQ) and twice during the review of the final draft. Recommendations were determined to have been adopted after obtaining support from a two-thirds (> 66.6%) majority vote of each of the 19 committee members. A total of 87 CQs were selected among 19 clinical areas, including pediatric topics and several other important areas not covered in the first edition of the Japanese guidelines (J-SSCG 2012). The approval rate obtained through committee voting, in addition to ratings of the strengths of the recommendation, and its supporting evidence were also added to each recommendation statement. We conducted meta-analyses for 29 CQs. Thirty-seven CQs contained recommendations in the form of an expert consensus due to insufficient evidence. No recommendations were provided for five CQs. Based on the evidence gathered, we were able to formulate Japanese-specific clinical practice guidelines that are tailored to the Japanese context in a highly transparent manner. These guidelines can easily be used not only by specialists, but also by non-specialists, general clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, clinical engineers, and other healthcare professionals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 293 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 11%
Researcher 26 9%
Student > Master 22 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 6%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Other 61 21%
Unknown 114 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 23 8%
Unknown 121 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 February 2018.
All research outputs
#8,250,113
of 25,372,398 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#328
of 578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,242
of 450,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#14
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,372,398 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 450,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.