↓ Skip to main content

Transferring the critically ill patient: are we there yet?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
37 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 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
Transferring the critically ill patient: are we there yet?
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0749-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joep M Droogh, Marije Smit, Anthony R Absalom, Jack JM Ligtenberg, Jan G Zijlstra

Abstract

During the past few decades the numbers of ICUs and beds has increased significantly, but so too has the demand for intensive care. Currently large, and increasing, numbers of critically ill patients require transfer between critical care units. Inter-unit transfer poses significant risks to critically ill patients, particularly those requiring multiple organ support. While the safety and quality of inter-unit and hospital transfers appear to have improved over the years, the effectiveness of specific measures to improve safety have not been confirmed by randomized controlled trials. It is generally accepted that critically ill patients should be transferred by specialized retrieval teams, but the composition, training and assessment of these teams is still a matter of debate. Since it is likely that the numbers and complexity of these transfers will increase in the near future, further studies are warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 269 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 18%
Student > Master 40 14%
Student > Postgraduate 30 11%
Other 24 9%
Researcher 23 8%
Other 52 19%
Unknown 58 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 73 26%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Chemistry 3 1%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 63 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,315,761
of 25,376,589 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,127
of 6,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,588
of 391,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#70
of 467 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,376,589 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,547 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 82% 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 391,847 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 467 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.