| Title |
The new sepsis consensus definitions: the good, the bad and the ugly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-016-4604-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charles L. Sprung, Roland M. H. Schein, Robert A. Balk |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Greece | 1 | 5% |
| Singapore | 1 | 5% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 5% |
| Denmark | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 62% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 138 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 11% |
| Researcher | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
| Other | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 37 | 26% |
| Unknown | 24 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 87 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Unknown | 25 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 23 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,870,044
of 24,451,685 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,911
of 5,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,705
of 316,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#36
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,451,685 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 316,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.