↓ Skip to main content

Performance and user evaluation of a novel capacitance-based automatic urinometer compared with a manual standard urinometer after elective cardiac surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Performance and user evaluation of a novel capacitance-based automatic urinometer compared with a manual standard urinometer after elective cardiac surgery
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0899-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anton Eklund, Martin Slettengren, Jan van der Linden

Abstract

In the intensive care setting, most physiologic parameters are monitored automatically. However, urine output (UO) is still monitored hourly by manually handled urinometers. This study evaluated an automatic urinometer (AU) and compared it with a manual urinometer (MU). This prospective study was carried out in the intensive care unit of a cardio-thoracic surgical clinic. In postoperative patients (n = 34) with indwelling urinary catheters and an expected stay of 24 hours or more, hourly UO samples were measured with an AU (Sippi®, Observe Medical, Gothenburg, Sweden, n = 220) or a MU (UnoMeter™ 500, Unomedical a/s, Birkeroed, Denmark, n = 188), and thereafter validated by cylinder measurements. Malposition of instrument at reading excluded measurement. Data were analyzed with the Bland-Altman method. The performance of the MU was used as minimum criteria of acceptance when the AU was evaluated. The loss of precision with the MU due to temporal deviation from fixed hourly measurements were recorded (n = 108). A questionnaire, filled out by the ward staff (n = 28), evaluated the ease of use of the AU compared with the MU. Bland-Altman analysis showed a smaller mean bias for the AU, +1.9 ml, compared with the MU, +5.3 ml (p < 0.0001). There was no statistical difference in measurement precision between the two urinometers, defined by their limits of agreement (±15.2 ml vs. ±16.6 ml, p = 0.11). The mean temporal variation with the MU was ±7.4 minutes (±12.4%), limits of agreement ±23.9 minutes (±39.8%), compared with no temporal variation with the AU (p < 0.0001). The ward staff considered the AU easy to learn and rated it higher than the MU (p < 0.0001). The AU was non-inferior to the MU and significantly better in terms of bias, temporal deviation and staff opinion, although the clinical relevance of these findings may be open to discussion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 27%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 55%
Computer Science 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 6 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 April 2015.
All research outputs
#6,634,118
of 12,786,839 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,751
of 4,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,301
of 225,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#30
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,786,839 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 225,623 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.