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 |
Differentiated control of deranged nitric oxide metabolism: a therapeutic option in sepsis?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc12538 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Corinna Lupp, Silke Baasner, Can Ince, Frank Nocken, John F Stover, Martin Westphal |
| Abstract |
Derangement of nitric oxide (NO) metabolism represents one of the key mechanisms contributing to macro- and microcirculatory failure in sepsis. Sepsis-related therapy combining fluid resuscitation with administration of vasopressor and inotropic agents, however, does not guarantee correction of maldistributed nutritive perfusion between and within organs. Therefore, the differentiated and selective pharmacologic modulation of NO-mediated vascular function could play a useful role in hemodynamic management of patients with sepsis. This viewpoint carefully evaluates the potential role of intentionally using partially opposing effects of NO donors and NO synthase inhibitors to complement current therapy of hemodynamic stabilization in patients with sepsis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 39% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 May 2013.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,970
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,709
of 207,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#100
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 207,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.