| Title |
Parenteral calcium for intensive care unit patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006163.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raquel M Forsythe, Charles B Wessel, Timothy R Billiar, Derek C Angus, Matthew R Rosengart |
| Abstract |
Hypocalcemia is prevalent among critically ill patients requiring intensive care. Several epidemiological studies highlight a direct association between hypocalcemia and mortality. These data provide the impetus for current guidelines recommending parenteral calcium administration to normalize serum calcium. However, in light of the considerable variation in the threshold for calcium replacement, the lack of evidence to support a causal role of hypocalcemia in mortality, and animal studies illustrating that calcium supplementation may worsen outcomes, a systematic review is essential to evaluate whether or not the practice of calcium supplementation for intensive care unit (ICU) patients provides any benefit. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Greece | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 40 | 28% |
| Unknown | 33 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 38 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 July 2014.
All research outputs
#6,782,944
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,921
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,791
of 102,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 102,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.