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 |
Refractory septic shock: our pragmatic approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-018-2144-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Prashanth Nandhabalan, Nicholas Ioannou, Christopher Meadows, Duncan Wyncoll |
| Abstract |
Despite timely intervention, there exists a small subgroup of patients with septic shock who develop progressive multi-organ failure. Seemingly refractory to conventional therapy, they exhibit a very high mortality. Such patients are often poorly represented in large clinical trials. Consequently, good evidence for effective treatment strategies is lacking. In this article, we describe a pragmatic, multi-faceted approach to managing patients with refractory septic shock based on our experience of toxin-mediated sepsis in a specialist referral centre. Many components of this strategy are inexpensive and widely accessible, and so may offer an opportunity to improve outcomes in these critically ill patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 151 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 Kingdom | 33 | 22% |
| United States | 12 | 8% |
| Colombia | 11 | 7% |
| Spain | 8 | 5% |
| Mexico | 7 | 5% |
| Ecuador | 6 | 4% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 1% |
| Australia | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 42 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 110 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 25 | 17% |
| Scientists | 11 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 212 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 37 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 29 | 14% |
| Researcher | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 55 | 26% |
| Unknown | 40 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 131 | 62% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 1% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 5% |
| Unknown | 50 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 05 May 2022.
All research outputs
#429,279
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#243
of 6,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,061
of 352,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#5
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,613 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 352,685 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.