↓ Skip to main content

Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis in the critically ill: cool tool or just another ‘toy’?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
45 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.
Article details
Title
Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis in the critically ill: cool tool or just another ‘toy’?
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1110-7
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Assessment of volume and hydration status is far from easy and therefore technology such as bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) may complement our examination techniques. This study highlights the fact that clinical assessment of volume balance and BIVA may correlate, but whether the routine use of BIVA will avoid significant volume overload in the critically ill remains unknown. Further studies are needed but at the moment appear a little way off.

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 10 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 45 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 %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Other 7 16%
Researcher 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 November 2015.
All research outputs
#6,911,583
of 31,768,658 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,338
of 7,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,161
of 424,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#319
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,768,658 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 424,266 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.