↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Variation in Fluid and Vasopressor Use in Shock With and Without Physiologic Assessment: A Multicenter Observational Study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care Medicine, July 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
91 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Variation in Fluid and Vasopressor Use in Shock With and Without Physiologic Assessment: A Multicenter Observational Study
Published in
Critical Care Medicine, July 2020
DOI 10.1097/ccm.0000000000004429
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jen-Ting Chen, Russel Roberts, Melissa J. Fazzari, Kianoush Kashani, Nida Qadir, Charles B. Cairns, Kusum Mathews, Pauline Park, Akram Khan, James F. Gilmore, Anne Rain T. Brown, Betty Tsuei, Michele Handzel, Alfredo Lee Chang, Abhijit Duggal, Michael Lanspa, James Taylor Herbert, Anthony Martinez, Joseph Tonna, Mahmoud A. Ammar, Drayton Hammond, Lama H. Nazer, Mojdeh Heavner, Erin Pender, Lauren Chambers, Michael T. Kenes, David Kaufman, April Downey, Brent Brown, Darlene Chaykosky, Armand Wolff, Michael Smith, Katie Nault, Jonathan Sevransky, Michelle N. Gong

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 91 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 4 31%
Researcher 4 31%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 62%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Environmental Science 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 20 October 2020.
All research outputs
#367,915
of 16,090,084 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#190
of 7,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,513
of 293,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#16
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,090,084 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 293,723 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.