↓ Skip to main content

The top cited clinical research articles on sepsis: a bibliometric analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
The top cited clinical research articles on sepsis: a bibliometric analysis
Published in
Critical Care, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11401
Pubmed ID
Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to identify and characterize the most highly cited clinical research articles published on sepsis. METHODS: A comprehensive list of citation classics in sepsis was generated by searching the database of Web of Science-Expanded (1970 to present) using keywords 'sepsis' or 'septic shock'. The top 50 cited clinical research papers were retrieved by reading the abstract or full text if needed. Each eligible article was reviewed for basic information, including country of origin, article type, journals, authors, and funding sources. RESULTS: A total of 2,151 articles were cited more than 100 times; the 50 top-cited clinical articles were published between 1974 and 2008. The number of citations ranged from 372 to 2,932, with a mean of 678 citations per article. These citation classics came from nine countries, of which 26 articles came from the United States. Rush University and the University of Pittsburgh lead the list of classics with six papers each. The 50 top-cited articles were published in 17 journals, with the New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association topping the list. The top 50 articles consisted of 21 clinical trials and 29 observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our bibliometric analysis provides a historical perspective on the progress of clinical research on sepsis. Articles originating from the United States and published in high-impact journals are most likely to be cited in the field of sepsis research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 4%
United States 2 2%
Malaysia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Unknown 73 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 23 27%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Engineering 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 17 20%

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 03 July 2012.
All research outputs
#13,473,953
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,546
of 6,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,271
of 164,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#24
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,061 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 164,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 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 67% of its contemporaries.