| Title |
Plasma transfusion strategies for critically ill patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010654.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oliver Karam, Marisa Tucci, Christophe Combescure, Jacques Lacroix, Peter C Rimensberger |
| Abstract |
Although plasma transfusions are frequently prescribed for critically ill patients, most clinical uses of plasma are not supported by evidence. Plasma transfusions do not seem to correct mild coagulation abnormalities based on international normalised ratio (INR) testing, but they seem to be independently associated with worse clinical outcomes in non-massively bleeding patients. Current recommendations on plasma transfusion strategies advocate limiting plasma transfusions to patients who are actively bleeding or who are at risk of bleeding and concomitantly have moderately abnormal coagulation tests. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 States | 2 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 11 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,829,870
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,986
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,787
of 319,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#155
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 319,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.