↓ Skip to main content

Klug-entscheiden-Empfehlungen in der internistischen Intensivmedizin

Overview of attention for article published in Die Innere Medizin, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Klug-entscheiden-Empfehlungen in der internistischen Intensivmedizin
Published in
Die Innere Medizin, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00108-017-0250-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Riessen, S. Kluge, U. Janssens, H. Kierdorf, K. F. Bodmann, H.-J. Busch, S. John, M. Möckel

Abstract

Intensive care medicine is an important and integral part of internal medicine. Modern intensive care medicine permits survival of many patients with severe and life-threatening internal diseases in acute situations. Decisive for therapeutic success is often not the application of complicated and expensive medical technologies, but rather the rapid diagnosis and identification of core issues, with immediate and competent initiation of standard treatment regimens. An adequately staffed, well-organized interprofessional team is of central importance. With the application of standard therapies, it has been increasingly demonstrated that "less is more", and that personalized treatment concepts are better than aggressive strategies with higher therapeutic goals. In accordance with the Choosing wisely recommendations of the American societies for intensive care medicine, the extended board of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internistische Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin (DGIIN) has formulated five positive and five negative recommendations reflecting these principles. The current paper is an updated version of the manuscript originally published in the Deutsches Ärzteblatt. When applying these recommendations, it is important to consider that intensive care patients are very complex; therefore, the applicability of these principles must be assessed on an individual basis and, where necessary, modified appropriately.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 4 25%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 63%
Unspecified 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Die Innere Medizin
#241
of 495 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,344
of 325,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Die Innere Medizin
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 495 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 325,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 63% of its contemporaries.