↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: International comparisons in critical care - lessons learned

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 5,538)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
539 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Clinical review: International comparisons in critical care - lessons learned
Published in
Critical Care, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Srinivas Murthy, Hannah Wunsch

Abstract

Critical care medicine is a global specialty and epidemiologic research among countries provides important data on availability of critical care resources, best practices, and alternative options for delivery of care. Understanding the diversity across healthcare systems allows us to explore that rich variability and understand better the nature of delivery systems and their impact on outcomes. However, because the delivery of ICU services is complex (for example, interplay of bed availability, cultural norms and population case-mix), the diversity among countries also creates challenges when interpreting and applying data. This complexity has profound influences on reported outcomes, often obscuring true differences. Future research should emphasize determination of resource data worldwide in order to understand current practices in different countries; this will permit rational pandemic and disaster planning, allow comparisons of in-ICU processes of care, and facilitate addition of pre- and post-ICU patient data to better interpret outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 539 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 149 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 22%
Student > Master 20 13%
Other 19 12%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 36 23%
Unknown 20 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Computer Science 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 29 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 233. 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 04 November 2020.
All research outputs
#96,567
of 18,951,205 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#31
of 5,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#375
of 136,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,951,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 136,036 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.