↓ Skip to main content

Fluid restriction in patients with heart failure: how should we think?

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
174 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
Fluid restriction in patients with heart failure: how should we think?
Published in
European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, May 2016
DOI 10.1177/1474515116650346
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Johansson, Martje HL van der Wal, Anna Strömberg, Nana Waldréus, Tiny Jaarsma

Abstract

Fluid restriction has long been considered one of the cornerstones in self-care management of patients with heart failure. The aim of this discussion paper is to discuss fluid restriction in heart failure and propose advice about fluid intake in heart failure patients. Although there have been seven randomised studies on fluid restriction in heart failure patients, the effect of fluid restriction on its own were only evaluated in two studies. In both studies, a stringent fluid restriction compared to a liberal fluid intake was not more beneficial with regard to clinical stability or body weight. In the other studies fluid restriction was part of a larger study intervention including, for example, individualised dietary recommendations and follow-up by telephone. Thus, the effect of fluid restriction on its own has been poorly evaluated. Fluid restriction should not be recommended to all heart failure patients. However, temporary fluid restriction can be considered in decompensated heart failure and/or patients with hyponatremia. Tailored fluid restriction based on body weight (30 ml/kg per day) seems to be most reasonable. To increase adherence to temporary fluid restriction, education, support and planned evaluations can be recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 173 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 21%
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Postgraduate 14 8%
Researcher 11 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 3%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 67 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 46 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Unspecified 2 1%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 71 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,502,083
of 24,652,720 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
#65
of 904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,659
of 315,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,652,720 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 315,337 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 96% of its contemporaries.