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 |
Evidence-based review of the use of the pulmonary artery catheter: impact data and complications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, November 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc4834 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mehrnaz Hadian, Michael R Pinsky |
| Abstract |
The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) was introduced in 1971 for the assessment of heart function at the bedside. Since then it has generated much enthusiasm and controversy regarding the benefits and potential harms caused by this invasive form of hemodynamic monitoring. This review discusses all clinical studies conducted during the past 30 years, in intensive care unit settings or post mortem, on the impact of the PAC on outcomes and complications resulting from the procedure. Although most of the historical observational studies and randomized clinical trials also looked at PAC-related complications among their end-points, we opted to review the data under two main topics: the impact of PAC on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness, and the major complications related to the use of the PAC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 33% |
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 150 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 31 | 19% |
| Other | 27 | 17% |
| Researcher | 27 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 32 | 20% |
| Unknown | 16 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 123 | 77% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 23 | 14% |
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 25 February 2023.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,987
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,677
of 167,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 167,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.