↓ Skip to main content

Inflammatory mediators in intra-abdominal sepsis or injury – a scoping review

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 (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Inflammatory mediators in intra-abdominal sepsis or injury – a scoping review
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1093-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhengwen Xiao, Crystal Wilson, Helen Lee Robertson, Derek J. Roberts, Chad G. Ball, Craig N. Jenne, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick

Abstract

Inflammatory and protein mediators (cytokine, chemokine, acute phase proteins) play an important, but still not completely understood, role in the morbidity and mortality of intra-abdominal sepsis/injury. We therefore systematically reviewed preclinical and clinical studies of mediators in intra-abdominal sepsis/injury in order to evaluate their ability to: (1) function as diagnostic/prognostic biomarkers; (2) serve as therapeutic targets; and (3) illuminate the pathogenesis mechanisms of sepsis or injury-related organ dysfunction. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Two investigators independently reviewed all identified abstracts and selected articles for full-text review. We included original studies assessing mediators in intra-abdominal sepsis/injury. Among 2437 citations, we selected 182 studies in the scoping review, including 79 preclinical and 103 clinical studies. Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein appear to be useful to rule out infection or monitor therapy; however, the diagnostic and prognostic value of mediators for complications/outcomes of sepsis or injury remains to be established. Peritoneal mediator levels are substantially higher than systemic levels after intra-abdominal infection/trauma. Common limitations of current studies included small sample sizes and lack of uniformity in study design and outcome measures. To date, targeted therapies against mediators remain experimental. Whereas preclinical data suggests mediators play a critical role in intra-abdominal sepsis or injury, there is no consensus on the clinical use of mediators in diagnosing or managing intra-abdominal sepsis or injury. Measurement of peritoneal mediators should be further investigated as a more sensitive determinant of intra-abdominal inflammatory response. High-quality clinical trials are needed to better understand the role of inflammatory mediators.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 23 23%
Unknown 25 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 30 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 16 May 2016.
All research outputs
#4,180,216
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,990
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,237
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#246
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 54% 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 well, scoring higher than 83% 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 is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.