↓ Skip to main content

European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine 2015 guidelines for post-resuscitation care

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
45 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
357 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
427 Mendeley
Title
European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine 2015 guidelines for post-resuscitation care
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00134-015-4051-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jerry P. Nolan, Jasmeet Soar, Alain Cariou, Tobias Cronberg, Véronique R. M. Moulaert, Charles D. Deakin, Bernd W. Bottiger, Hans Friberg, Kjetil Sunde, Claudio Sandroni

Abstract

The European Resuscitation Council and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine have collaborated to produce these post-resuscitation care guidelines, which are based on the 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. Recent changes in post-resuscitation care include: (a) greater emphasis on the need for urgent coronary catheterisation and percutaneous coronary intervention following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of likely cardiac cause; (b) targeted temperature management remains important but there is now an option to target a temperature of 36 °C instead of the previously recommended 32-34 °C;

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 427 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 417 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 57 13%
Other 46 11%
Student > Bachelor 46 11%
Student > Master 45 11%
Student > Postgraduate 36 8%
Other 107 25%
Unknown 90 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 221 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 8%
Engineering 8 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 1%
Other 41 10%
Unknown 111 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#836,272
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#785
of 5,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,247
of 293,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#3
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 293,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.