↓ Skip to main content

Unmeasured anions and mortality in critically ill patients in 2016

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Unmeasured anions and mortality in critically ill patients in 2016
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40560-016-0171-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshifumi Kotake

Abstract

The presence of acid-base disturbances, especially metabolic acidosis may negatively affect the outcome of critically ill patients. Lactic acidosis is the most frequent etiology and has largest impact on the prognosis. Since lactate measurement might not have always been available at bedside, it had been regarded as one of the unmeasured anions. Therefore, anion gap and strong ion gap has been used to as a surrogate of lactate concentration. From this perspective, the relationship between either anion gap or strong ion gap and mortality has been explored. Then, lactate became routinely measurable at bedside and the direct comparison between directly measured lactate and these surrogate parameters can be possible. Currently available evidence suggests that directly measured lactate has larger prognostic ability for mortality than albumin-corrected anion gap and strong ion gap without lactate. In this commentary, the rationale and possible clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Lecturer 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 62%
Unknown 5 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 November 2016.
All research outputs
#12,668,270
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#292
of 516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,906
of 355,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#10
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 355,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.