↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
226 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007594.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas C Mutter, Chelsea A Ruth, Allison B Dart

Abstract

Hydroxyethyl starches (HES) are synthetic colloids commonly used for fluid resuscitation to replace intravascular volume, yet they have been increasingly associated with adverse effects on kidney function. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 252 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 11%
Researcher 25 10%
Other 23 9%
Student > Postgraduate 20 8%
Other 73 29%
Unknown 52 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 144 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 60 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 14 February 2022.
All research outputs
#2,480,498
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,009
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,624
of 209,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 241 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 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 209,423 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 241 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 54% of its contemporaries.