| Title |
Sepsis: frontiers in supportive care, organisation and research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-017-4677-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anders Perner, Andrew Rhodes, Bala Venkatesh, Derek C. Angus, Ignacio Martin-loeches, Jean-Charles Preiser, Jean-Louis Vincent, John Marshall, Konrad Reinhart, Michael Joannidis, Steven M. Opal |
| Abstract |
Because of its high incidence and clinical complexity, sepsis is a major challenge to clinicians and researchers and a global burden to healthcare systems and society. Despite recent progress, short- and long-term morbidity, mortality and costs remain high in both developed and developing countries. Thus, further improvements in supportive interventions and organisation of care are likely to have a substantial impact upon global health. In this narrative review, invited experts describe the challenges and progress to be made in sepsis research and care in the near future. We focus on supportive care (pulmonary, endocrine, renal, and nutritional support, mediator modulation and precision medicine), organisational themes (guidelines, outcome measures and stakeholder involvement) and clinical research as key areas to improving the care and outcomes of patients with sepsis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 20% |
| Brazil | 1 | 10% |
| Argentina | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 118 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 13% |
| Researcher | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 33 | 28% |
| Unknown | 23 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 25 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,874,288
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#2,264
of 5,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,143
of 429,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#62
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 429,433 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.