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 |
Clinical review: Fever in septic ICU patients - friend or foe?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, June 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc10097 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yoann Launey, Nicolas Nesseler, Yannick Mallédant, Philippe Seguin |
| Abstract |
In recent years, fever control in critically ill patients by medications and/or external cooling has gained widespread use, notably in patients suffering from neurological injuries. Nevertheless, such a strategy in septic patients is not supported by relevant data. Indeed, in response to sepsis, experimental and clinical studies argue that fever plays a key role in increasing the clearance of microorganisms, the immune response and the heat shock response. Moreover, fever is a cornerstone diagnostic sign in clinical practice, which aids in early and appropriate therapy, and allows physicians to follow the infection course. After discussing the physiological aspects of fever production, the present review aims to delineate the advantages and drawbacks of fever in septic patients. Finally, the treatment of fever by pharmacological and/or physical means is discussed with regards to their drawbacks, which argues for their careful use in septic patients in the absence of clinical relevance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 43% |
| Mexico | 1 | 14% |
| Germany | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 4 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 2 | 1% |
| France | 2 | 1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 165 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 23 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 13% |
| Other | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 55 | 30% |
| Unknown | 21 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 103 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 16 January 2022.
All research outputs
#4,301,374
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,067
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,677
of 123,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#12
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd 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 53% 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 123,944 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 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 72% of its contemporaries.