| Title |
Goal-directed therapy and acute kidney injury: as good as it gets?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1346-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James F. Doyle, Marlies Ostermann, Lui G. Forni |
| Abstract |
The use of goal-directed therapy as part of an enhanced recovery programme is well established in terms of management of the modern high-risk surgical patient in order to reduce both morbidity and mortality. The mechanisms behind this improvement are debated, but a reduction in the development of post-operative complications including acute kidney injury may be relevant. A recent study examining this relationship has been reported and is discussed here. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 | 5 | 16% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 6% |
| Colombia | 2 | 6% |
| Russia | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Thailand | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 44% |
| Scientists | 1 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 23% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 73% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 04 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,919,056
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,711
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,209
of 367,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#55
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 367,896 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.