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 |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 82 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 States | 41 | 50% |
France | 2 | 2% |
Italy | 2 | 2% |
Peru | 1 | 1% |
Chile | 1 | 1% |
Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
Belgium | 1 | 1% |
Japan | 1 | 1% |
Argentina | 1 | 1% |
Other | 4 | 5% |
Unknown | 27 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 50 | 61% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 17% |
Scientists | 14 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 12 | 20% |
Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
Researcher | 4 | 7% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
Other | 10 | 17% |
Unknown | 23 | 38% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 38% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 3% |
Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
Other | 4 | 7% |
Unknown | 26 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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
#782,935
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#350
of 9,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,212
of 427,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#9
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 427,031 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 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 92% of its contemporaries.