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 |
Pro/con debate: Is etomidate safe in hemodynamically unstable critically ill patients?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11242 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gordon Flynn, Yahya Shehabi |
| Abstract |
ABSTRACT: Etomidate is an induction agent known for its smooth intubating shown that a single dose of etomidate can result in a porlonged adrenal insufficiency. The impact of in patients with sepsis has conditions and cardiovascular stability. Studies, however, have been a matter for debate. This review present a pro/con case for using etomidate in hemodynamically unstable critically ill patients and provides guidance for alternative induction techniques and when the use of etomidate might be justified despite these concerns. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Czechia | 1 | 2% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 64% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 07 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,025,991
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,527
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,446
of 178,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#13
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 178,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.