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 |
Effect of dexmedetomidine versus lorazepam on outcome in patients with sepsis: an a priori-designed analysis of the MENDS randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, March 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc8916 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pratik P Pandharipande, Robert D Sanders, Timothy D Girard, Stuart McGrane, Jennifer L Thompson, Ayumi K Shintani, Daniel L Herr, Mervyn Maze, E Wesley Ely, the MENDS investigators |
| Abstract |
Benzodiazepines and alpha2 adrenoceptor agonists exert opposing effects on innate immunity and mortality in animal models of infection. We hypothesized that sedation with dexmedetomidine (an alpha2 adrenoceptor agonist), as compared with lorazepam (a benzodiazepine), would provide greater improvements in clinical outcomes among septic patients than among non-septic patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 60% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 321 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 2% |
| Brazil | 4 | 1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 300 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 54 | 17% |
| Other | 36 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 35 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 7% |
| Other | 87 | 27% |
| Unknown | 54 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 208 | 65% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 4% |
| Unknown | 59 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 17 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,891,926
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,693
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,523
of 102,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#7
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 74% 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 102,365 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.