↓ Skip to main content

TRACKING CENTRAL HYPOVOLEMIA WITH ECG IN HUMANS

Overview of attention for article published in Shock, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
TRACKING CENTRAL HYPOVOLEMIA WITH ECG IN HUMANS
Published in
Shock, June 2010
DOI 10.1097/shk.0b013e3181cd8cbe
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Heart period variability (HPV) metrics have been suggested for use in medical monitoring of trauma patients. This study sought to ascertain the use of various HPV metrics in tracking central blood volume during simulated hemorrhage in individual humans. One hundred one healthy nonsmoking volunteers (58 men, 43 women) were instrumented for continuous measurement of electrocardiogram and beat-by-beat finger arterial blood pressure. Stroke volume (SV) was estimated from the arterial pulse wave and used to reflect central blood volume. Progressive lower body negative pressure (LBNP) was applied in 5-min stages until the onset of impending hemodynamic decompensation (systolic blood pressure <70 mmHg and/or presyncopal symptoms). HPV was assessed with analysis of R-to-R intervals using both linear (time and frequency domains) and nonlinear (e.g., complexity, fractality) methods. Application of increasing LBNP caused progressive reductions of SV, whereas arterial pressures changed only minimally and late. Group LBNP stage means for each HPV metric changed progressively and were strongly correlated with the mean decrease in SV (|r| > or = 0.87). To ascertain the utility of the HPV metrics to track individual responses to central hypovolemia, the difference scores for each HPV metric were correlated at each successive LBNP level, with percentage change in SV at the subject level. This cross-correlation of difference scores revealed that none of the HPV metrics showed strong and consistent correlations (|r| < or = 0.49) with percentage change in SV across successive LBNP levels. Although aggregate group mean values for HPV metrics are well correlated with SV changes during central hypovolemia, these metrics are less reliable when tracking individual reductions in central volume during LBNP. HPV metrics, therefore, may not be useful in monitoring hemorrhagic injuries in individual patients.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 43 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 %
Norway 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Other 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 33%
Engineering 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 June 2013.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Shock
#2,010
of 3,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,266
of 105,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Shock
#9
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,259 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 105,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.