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 |
Protocols in the management of critical illness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc10578 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steven Y Chang, Jon Sevransky, Greg S Martin |
| Abstract |
Care of the critically ill patient is becoming increasingly complex. Protocols, which standardize care of patients with similar diseases, represent a potential solution to managing multiple simultaneous problems in critically ill patients. In this article, we examine the advantages and disadvantages to care protocolization, and posit that careful and thoughtful implementation of protocols is likely to benefit patients. We also discuss the potential for unintended consequences, and even harm, with protocolization in critically ill patients using the Critical Illness Outcomes Study as a model to examine the effects of protocolization in large populations of intensive care patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 64 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 14% |
| Professor | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 22% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 55% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,170,530
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,987
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,029
of 170,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#61
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 170,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.