↓ Skip to main content

The desperate need for good-quality clinical trials to evaluate the optimal source and dose of fibrinogen in managing bleeding

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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 desperate need for good-quality clinical trials to evaluate the optimal source and dose of fibrinogen in managing bleeding
Published in
Critical Care, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/cc10510
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon J Stanworth, Beverley J Hunt

Abstract

Recent interest in transfusion management of trauma patients has heightened expectation in the role of blood component therapy in improving patient outcome. Optimal transfusion support in supplementation with fibrinogen has not been defined by high-quality evidence. Current evidence comes mainly from case series and uncontrolled studies and does not support the superiority of one source of fibrinogen over another or the optimal schedule or dose for patient benefit. There are unanswered questions about safety, especially the effects on the risk of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism, an important consideration in any therapy that alters the hemostatic balance. Studies of cost-effectiveness have not been considered in research. An international move to supplement fibrinogen more 'aggressively' without direct clinical evaluation beforehand represents a failed opportunity to improve our very limited understanding of optimal transfusion practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 4%
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Postgraduate 5 18%
Other 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 79%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 3 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 November 2011.
All research outputs
#15,168,167
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,986
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,945
of 154,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#35
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 154,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 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.