↓ Skip to main content

The pathophysiological basis and consequences of fever

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 6,614)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
33 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
152 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
q&a
2 Q&A threads
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
203 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
990 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 pathophysiological basis and consequences of fever
Published in
Critical Care, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1375-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward James Walter, Sameer Hanna-Jumma, Mike Carraretto, Lui Forni

Abstract

There are numerous causes of a raised core temperature. A fever occurring in sepsis may be associated with a survival benefit. However, this is not the case for non-infective triggers. Where heat generation exceeds heat loss and the core temperature rises above that set by the hypothalamus, a combination of cellular, local, organ-specific, and systemic effects occurs and puts the individual at risk of both short-term and long-term dysfunction which, if severe or sustained, may lead to death. This narrative review is part of a series that will outline the pathophysiology of pyrogenic and non-pyrogenic fever, concentrating primarily on the pathophysiology of non-septic causes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 152 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 990 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 987 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 193 19%
Student > Master 80 8%
Student > Postgraduate 79 8%
Other 60 6%
Researcher 57 6%
Other 167 17%
Unknown 354 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 323 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 82 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 54 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 3%
Other 105 11%
Unknown 373 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 377. 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 11 April 2024.
All research outputs
#84,225
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#24
of 6,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,754
of 372,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#2
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,614 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 372,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.