↓ Skip to main content

Effects of dobutamine on systemic, regional and microcirculatory perfusion parameters in septic shock: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, June 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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 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
Effects of dobutamine on systemic, regional and microcirculatory perfusion parameters in septic shock: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00134-013-2982-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Glenn Hernandez, Alejandro Bruhn, Cecilia Luengo, Tomas Regueira, Eduardo Kattan, Andrea Fuentealba, Jorge Florez, Ricardo Castro, Andres Aquevedo, Ronald Pairumani, Paul McNab, Can Ince

Abstract

The role of dobutamine during septic shock resuscitation is still controversial since most clinical studies have been uncontrolled and no physiological study has unequivocally demonstrated a beneficial effect on tissue perfusion. Our objective was to determine the potential benefits of dobutamine on hemodynamic, metabolic, peripheral, hepatosplanchnic and microcirculatory perfusion parameters during early septic shock resuscitation.

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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 3 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 182 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 12%
Student > Postgraduate 21 11%
Other 19 10%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Other 52 28%
Unknown 42 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 47 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,634,219
of 25,347,980 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#2,408
of 5,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,827
of 203,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#8
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,347,980 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 203,941 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.