↓ Skip to main content

Designing phase 3 sepsis trials: application of learned experiences from critical care trials in acute heart failure

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, March 2016
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Designing phase 3 sepsis trials: application of learned experiences from critical care trials in acute heart failure
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40560-016-0151-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandre Mebazaa, Pierre François Laterre, James A. Russell, Andreas Bergmann, Luciano Gattinoni, Etienne Gayat, Michael O. Harhay, Oliver Hartmann, Frauke Hein, Anne Louise Kjolbye, Matthieu Legrand, Roger J. Lewis, John C. Marshall, Gernot Marx, Peter Radermacher, Mathias Schroedter, Paul Scigalla, Wendy Gattis Stough, Joachim Struck, Greet Van den Berghe, Mehmet Birhan Yilmaz, Derek C. Angus

Abstract

Substantial attention and resources have been directed to improving outcomes of patients with critical illnesses, in particular sepsis, but all recent clinical trials testing various interventions or strategies have failed to detect a robust benefit on mortality. Acute heart failure is also a critical illness, and although the underlying etiologies differ, acute heart failure and sepsis are critical care illnesses that have a high mortality in which clinical trials have been difficult to conduct and have not yielded effective treatments. Both conditions represent a syndrome that is often difficult to define with a wide variation in patient characteristics, presentation, and standard management across institutions. Referring to past experiences and lessons learned in acute heart failure may be informative and help frame research in the area of sepsis. Academic heart failure investigators and industry have worked closely with regulators for many years to transition acute heart failure trials away from relying on dyspnea assessments and all-cause mortality as the primary measures of efficacy, and recent trials have been designed to assess novel clinical composite endpoints assessing organ dysfunction and mortality while still assessing all-cause mortality as a separate measure of safety. Applying the lessons learned in acute heart failure trials to severe sepsis and septic shock trials might be useful to advance the field. Novel endpoints beyond all-cause mortality should be considered for future sepsis trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 24%
Other 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 19 31%
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 18 September 2023.
All research outputs
#4,232,969
of 25,393,071 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#207
of 579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,882
of 315,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#7
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,071 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 579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. 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 315,443 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 70% of its contemporaries.