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 |
Challenges and pitfalls when implementing renal replacement therapy in the ICU
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc14727 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ravindra L Mehta |
| Abstract |
Several new methods of renal replacement therapy (RRT) are now available for treating patients in the ICU setting. However, utilization of RRT in the ICU is subject to considerable variation and the need for RRT is associated with worse outcomes. Several factors influence the application of dialysis and reflect the interplay of patient and process of care elements that are dynamic in nature. Despite multiple studies evaluating RRT and its application, there are gaps in our knowledge that must be overcome to improve outcomes. This article discusses some of the important issues that require attention in delivering RRT in critically ill patients and provides a framework for the optimal use of RRT in the ICU. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 17% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 9% |
| United States | 2 | 9% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| South Africa | 1 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 07 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,650,803
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,310
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,686
of 394,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#191
of 483 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th 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 64% 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 394,026 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 483 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 60% of its contemporaries.