↓ Skip to main content

Fluid management of the neurological patient: a concise review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2016
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
411 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
402 Mendeley
Title
Fluid management of the neurological patient: a concise review
Published in
Critical Care, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1309-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathieu van der Jagt

Abstract

Maintenance fluids in critically ill brain-injured patients are part of routine critical care. Both the amounts of fluid volumes infused and the type and tonicity of maintenance fluids are relevant in understanding the impact of fluids on the pathophysiology of secondary brain injuries in these patients. In this narrative review, current evidence on routine fluid management of critically ill brain-injured patients and use of haemodynamic monitoring is summarized. Pertinent guidelines and consensus statements on fluid management for brain-injured patients are highlighted. In general, existing guidelines indicate that fluid management in these neurocritical care patients should be targeted at euvolemia using isotonic fluids. A critical appraisal is made of the available literature regarding the appropriate amount of fluids, haemodynamic monitoring and which types of fluids should be administered or avoided and a practical approach to fluid management is elaborated. Although hypovolemia is bound to contribute to secondary brain injury, some more recent data have emerged indicating the potential risks of fluid overload. However, it is acknowledged that many factors govern the relationship between fluid management and cerebral blood flow and oxygenation and more research seems warranted to optimise fluid management and improve outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 411 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 402 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 392 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 61 15%
Student > Postgraduate 47 12%
Researcher 44 11%
Student > Bachelor 38 9%
Student > Master 31 8%
Other 100 25%
Unknown 81 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 238 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 7%
Neuroscience 21 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 <1%
Psychology 4 <1%
Other 19 5%
Unknown 89 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 250. 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 06 May 2022.
All research outputs
#152,073
of 25,840,929 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#61
of 6,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,925
of 354,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#3
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,840,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 354,982 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 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 97% of its contemporaries.