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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Should we measure the central venous pressure to guide fluid management? Ten answers to 10 questions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-018-1959-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel De Backer, Jean-Louis Vincent |
| Abstract |
The central venous pressure (CVP) is the most frequently used variable to guide fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients, although its use has been challenged. In this viewpoint, we use a question and answer format to highlight the potential advantages and limitations of using CVP measurements to guide fluid resuscitation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 313 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 32 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 21 | 7% |
| Mexico | 20 | 6% |
| Spain | 14 | 4% |
| India | 13 | 4% |
| Colombia | 12 | 4% |
| Japan | 8 | 3% |
| Argentina | 7 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 54 | 17% |
| Unknown | 126 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 236 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 46 | 15% |
| Scientists | 23 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 518 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 518 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 96 | 19% |
| Researcher | 60 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 56 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 45 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 43 | 8% |
| Other | 114 | 22% |
| Unknown | 104 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 322 | 62% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 5 | <1% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | <1% |
| Other | 21 | 4% |
| Unknown | 124 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 199. 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 22 April 2023.
All research outputs
#203,087
of 25,840,929 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#82
of 6,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,627
of 345,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#4
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,840,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 345,123 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.