↓ Skip to main content

Transfusion in trauma: thromboelastometry-guided coagulation factor concentrate-based therapy versus standard fresh frozen plasma-based therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
366 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
245 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
Transfusion in trauma: thromboelastometry-guided coagulation factor concentrate-based therapy versus standard fresh frozen plasma-based therapy
Published in
Critical Care, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/cc10078
Pubmed ID
Authors

Herbert Schöchl, Ulrike Nienaber, Marc Maegele, Gerald Hochleitner, Florian Primavesi, Beatrice Steitz, Christian Arndt, Alexander Hanke, Wolfgang Voelckel, Cristina Solomon

Abstract

Thromboelastometry (TEM)-guided haemostatic therapy with fibrinogen concentrate and prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) in trauma patients may reduce the need for transfusion of red blood cells (RBC) or platelet concentrate, compared with fresh frozen plasma (FFP)-based haemostatic therapy.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 2%
Germany 3 1%
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 228 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 48 20%
Researcher 46 19%
Student > Master 25 10%
Student > Postgraduate 24 10%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Other 53 22%
Unknown 27 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 180 73%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Neuroscience 3 1%
Other 8 3%
Unknown 36 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 October 2013.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,211
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,844
of 120,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#63
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 120,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.