↓ Skip to main content

Complications of Massive Transfusion

Overview of attention for article published in CHEST, January 2010
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
384 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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.
Article details
Title
Complications of Massive Transfusion
Published in
CHEST, January 2010
DOI 10.1378/chest.09-0252
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Massive transfusion (MT) is a lifesaving treatment of hemorrhagic shock, but can be associated with significant complications. The lethal triad of acidosis, hypothermia, and coagulopathy associated with MT is associated with a high mortality rate. Other complications include hypothermia, acid/base derangements, electrolyte abnormalities (hypocalcemia, hypomagnesemia, hypokalemia, hyperkalemia), citrate toxicity, and transfusion-associated acute lung injury. Blood transfusion in trauma, surgery, and critical care has been identified as an independent predictor of multiple organ failure, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, increased infection, and increased mortality in multiple studies. Once definitive control of hemorrhage has been established, a restrictive approach to blood transfusion should be implemented to minimize further complications.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 384 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
South Africa 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 369 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 60 16%
Other 56 15%
Researcher 52 14%
Student > Master 35 9%
Student > Bachelor 27 7%
Other 86 22%
Unknown 68 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 242 63%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 2%
Engineering 5 1%
Other 29 8%
Unknown 78 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 08 August 2026.
All research outputs
#4,381,541
of 34,362,729 outputs
Outputs from CHEST
#4,361
of 18,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,491
of 234,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CHEST
#14
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,362,729 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 234,179 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.