↓ Skip to main content

Hydroxyethyl Starch or Saline for Fluid Resuscitation in Intensive Care

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, October 2012
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1439 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1334 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Hydroxyethyl Starch or Saline for Fluid Resuscitation in Intensive Care
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1209759
Pubmed ID
Authors

John A Myburgh, Simon Finfer, Rinaldo Bellomo, Laurent Billot, Alan Cass, David Gattas, Parisa Glass, Jeffrey Lipman, Bette Liu, Colin McArthur, Shay McGuinness, Dorrilyn Rajbhandari, Colman B Taylor, Steven A R Webb

Abstract

The safety and efficacy of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) for fluid resuscitation have not been fully evaluated, and adverse effects of HES on survival and renal function have been reported. We randomly assigned 7000 patients who had been admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 6% HES with a molecular weight of 130 kD and a molar substitution ratio of 0.4 (130/0.4, Voluven) in 0.9% sodium chloride or 0.9% sodium chloride (saline) for all fluid resuscitation until ICU discharge, death, or 90 days after randomization. The primary outcome was death within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury and failure and treatment with renal-replacement therapy. A total of 597 of 3315 patients (18.0%) in the HES group and 566 of 3336 (17.0%) in the saline group died (relative risk in the HES group, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.18; P=0.26). There was no significant difference in mortality in six predefined subgroups. Renal-replacement therapy was used in 235 of 3352 patients (7.0%) in the HES group and 196 of 3375 (5.8%) in the saline group (relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45; P=0.04). In the HES and saline groups, renal injury occurred in 34.6% and 38.0% of patients, respectively (P=0.005), and renal failure occurred in 10.4% and 9.2% of patients, respectively (P=0.12). HES was associated with significantly more adverse events (5.3% vs. 2.8%, P<0.001). In patients in the ICU, there was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between patients resuscitated with 6% HES (130/0.4) or saline. However, more patients who received resuscitation with HES were treated with renal-replacement therapy. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; CHEST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00935168.).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 141 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 1,334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 9 <1%
United States 8 <1%
Italy 8 <1%
Brazil 5 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
France 3 <1%
Belgium 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Other 21 2%
Unknown 1267 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 219 16%
Researcher 182 14%
Student > Postgraduate 164 12%
Student > Master 114 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 106 8%
Other 353 26%
Unknown 196 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 917 69%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 27 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 19 1%
Other 78 6%
Unknown 225 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 283. 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 02 October 2023.
All research outputs
#127,092
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#2,947
of 32,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#574
of 197,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#19
of 379 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 32,765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 197,708 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 379 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 94% of its contemporaries.