| Title |
Haemodynamic optimisation: are we dynamic enough?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc10480 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sophie J Parker, Owen Boyd |
| Abstract |
Perioperative haemodynamic optimisation of high-risk surgical patients has long been documented to improve both short-term and long-term outcomes, as well as to reduce the rate of postoperative complications. Based on the evidence, cardiac output monitoring and fluid resuscitation, combined with the use of inotropes, would seem to be the gold standard of care for these difficult surgical cases. However, clinicians do not universally apply these techniques and principles in their everyday practice. By exploring the reasons why this is so, perhaps we could move forward in the standardisation of care and the application of evidence-based practice. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 27% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 77% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 November 2011.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,986
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,593
of 152,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#44
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 152,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.