↓ Skip to main content

Early Goal-Directed Sedation Versus Standard Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care Medicine, August 2013
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
154 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
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
Early Goal-Directed Sedation Versus Standard Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients
Published in
Critical Care Medicine, August 2013
DOI 10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828a437d
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yahya Shehabi, Rinaldo Bellomo, Michael C. Reade, Michael Bailey, Frances Bass, Belinda Howe, Colin McArthur, Lynne Murray, Ian M. Seppelt, Steve Webb, Leonie Weisbrodt

Abstract

To assess the feasibility and safety of delivering early goal-directed sedation compared with standard sedation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 1%
United States 3 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 236 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 12%
Other 30 12%
Student > Master 30 12%
Student > Postgraduate 22 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Other 74 30%
Unknown 42 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 146 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 51 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 31 August 2015.
All research outputs
#4,254,977
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#2,787
of 9,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,666
of 210,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#45
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 210,078 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 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.