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 |
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
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 % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
Australia | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
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
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.