↓ Skip to main content

Our favorite unproven ideas for future critical care

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
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.
Title
Our favorite unproven ideas for future critical care
Published in
Critical Care, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc11507
Pubmed ID
Authors

John J Marini, Jean-Louis Vincent, Paul Wischmeyer, Mervyn Singer, Luciano Gattinoni, Can Ince, Tong Joo Gan

Abstract

The future of critical care medicine will be shaped not only by the evidence-validated foundations of science, but also by innovations based on unproven and, in many cases, untested concepts and thoughtful visions of scientists and clinicians familiar with the complex problems actually faced in clinical practice. Clinical investigations and trials often lag behind collective experience and impressions, in a well-intentioned and necessary quest to determine the fallacy or validity of ongoing practice. Progress made in this way can be painfully slow, and imperfect theory may prove difficult to challenge. On occasion, an innovative paradigm shift fostered by a novel approach can reorient the forces of academic investigation toward generating an evidence base upon which such concepts and interpretations can find scientific justification. This discussion presents a selected set of ideas to improve the future practice of critical care - each having a defensible rationale, but unconfirmed validity.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 58 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 20%
Professor 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Other 17 28%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 69%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Engineering 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 4 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 January 2014.
All research outputs
#2,568,399
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,227
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,826
of 208,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#23
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 208,479 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 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.