You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Timing and volume of fluid administration for patients with bleeding
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2014
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002245.pub2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Irene Kwan, Frances Bunn, Paul Chinnock, Ian Roberts |
Abstract |
Treatment of haemorrhagic shock involves maintaining blood pressure and tissue perfusion until bleeding is controlled. Different resuscitation strategies have been used to maintain the blood pressure in trauma patients until bleeding is controlled. However, while maintaining blood pressure may prevent shock, it may worsen bleeding. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 6 | 21% |
Australia | 3 | 10% |
Spain | 2 | 7% |
Turkey | 1 | 3% |
Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
Slovenia | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 15 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 15 | 52% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 34% |
Scientists | 3 | 10% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Kazakhstan | 1 | <1% |
Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
Mexico | 1 | <1% |
Andorra | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 256 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 48 | 18% |
Student > Master | 35 | 13% |
Other | 26 | 10% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 8% |
Researcher | 18 | 7% |
Other | 56 | 21% |
Unknown | 58 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 132 | 50% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 12% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 2% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
Social Sciences | 6 | 2% |
Other | 10 | 4% |
Unknown | 71 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 17 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,179,414
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,440
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,442
of 236,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 236,041 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 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.