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 |
The epidemiology of sepsis: questioning our understanding of the role of race
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-1074-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas S. Valley, Colin R. Cooke |
| Abstract |
Race has been identified as an important risk factor for the development of sepsis and as a predictor of poor outcomes in sepsis. For example, black individuals have been demonstrated to be nearly twice as likely to develop sepsis and to have greater mortality from sepsis than white individuals. Recent data from a longitudinal cohort, which examined incident hospitalizations for infections occurring among participants in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort, contradicts this prior research. Investigators determined that black participants were significantly less likely than white participants to present to the hospital with either infection or sepsis. Although these results are intriguing, they highlight our inadequate understanding of the relationship between race and sepsis and motivate the need for higher quality epidemiologic research to isolate the true role of race in the development of sepsis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 | 5 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 16% |
| Mexico | 2 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Greece | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 72% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Scientists | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 59% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 15 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,418,098
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,116
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,856
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#165
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 395,421 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.