| Title |
Consensus statement of the ESICM task force on colloid volume therapy in critically ill patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-012-2472-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Konrad Reinhart, Anders Perner, Charles L. Sprung, Roman Jaeschke, Frederique Schortgen, A. B. Johan Groeneveld, Richard Beale, Christiane S. Hartog |
| Abstract |
Colloids are administered to more patients than crystalloids, although recent evidence suggests that colloids may possibly be harmful in some patients. The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine therefore assembled a task force to compile consensus recommendations based on the current best evidence for the safety and efficacy of the currently most frequently used colloids--hydroxyethyl starches (HES), gelatins and human albumin. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 29% |
| Belgium | 2 | 29% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Hungary | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 2% |
| Unknown | 270 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 44 | 15% |
| Researcher | 36 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 9% |
| Professor | 22 | 8% |
| Other | 99 | 35% |
| Unknown | 32 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 204 | 72% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 7% |
| Unknown | 40 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 05 July 2016.
All research outputs
#4,841,470
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#2,494
of 5,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,295
of 261,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#8
of 29 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 80th 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 54% 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 261,066 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 72% of its contemporaries.