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 |
Is the “golden age” of the “golden hour” in sepsis over?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-1167-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Derek S. Wheeler |
| Abstract |
The so-called "golden hour" of trauma resuscitation has been applied to a number of disease conditions in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. For example, the "golden hour" as applied to the treatment of critically children and adults with severe sepsis and septic shock is based upon early recognition, early administration of antibiotics, and early reversal of the shock state. However, several clinical studies published over the last decade have called into question this time-honored approach and suggest that overly aggressive fluid resuscitation may cause more harm than good. Perhaps we are finally leaving the "Golden Age" of the "golden hour" and entering a new age in which we are able to use a more personalized approach to fluid management for patients with severe sepsis/septic shock. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 4 | 33% |
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Sweden | 1 | 8% |
| Turkey | 1 | 8% |
| Italy | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 76 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 40% |
| Unspecified | 12 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 January 2016.
All research outputs
#4,760,313
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,250
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,769
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#271
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st 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 50% 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 81% 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.