↓ Skip to main content

A survey on the resources and practices in pediatric critical care of resource-rich and resource-limited countries

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
A survey on the resources and practices in pediatric critical care of resource-rich and resource-limited countries
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40560-015-0106-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandeep Tripathi, Harsheen Kaur, Rahul Kashyap, Yue Dong, Ognjen Gajic, Srinivas Murthy

Abstract

Contemporary critical care research necessitates involvement of multiple centers, preferably from many countries. Adult and pediatric research networks have produced outstanding data; however, their involvement is restricted to a small percentage of the industrialized nations. Implementation of their findings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is fraught with challenges. We conducted an online international survey to assess and compare disease burden and resources to participate in multicenter research studies through a listserv of the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies. Respondents were grouped into high-income countries and LMICs on the basis of World Bank classification. Survey was completed by 73 centers in 34 countries (34 from high-income countries and 39 from LMICs). Compared with high-income countries, the pediatric intensive care units in LMICs were characterized by a lower number of critical care specialists, more difficult access to hemodialysis, and a lower number of elective postoperative patients, but a similar overall disease burden. Training and resources for research were comparable in the two cohorts. Although differences exist in access to both trained providers and equipment, the survey results were more striking in their similarity. It is essential that centers from LMICs be included in multinational studies, to generate results applicable to all children worldwide.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Bachelor 12 20%
Student > Master 9 15%
Other 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 10 16%

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 20 October 2015.
All research outputs
#9,922,490
of 15,641,217 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#260
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,020
of 254,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,641,217 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 254,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them