Cardiac output (CO) measurement has long been considered essential to the assessment and guidance of therapeutic decisions in critically ill patients and for patients undergoing certain high-risk surgeries. Despite controversies, complications and inherent errors in measurement, pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) continuous and intermittent bolus techniques of CO measurement continue to be the gold standard. Newer techniques provide less invasive alternatives; however, currently available monitors are unable to provide central circulation pressures or true mixed venous saturations. Esophageal Doppler and pulse contour monitors can predict fluid responsiveness and have been shown to decrease postoperative morbidity. Many minimally invasive techniques continue to suffer from decreased accuracy and reliability under periods of hemodynamic instability, and so few have reached the level of interchangeability with the PAC.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
2
2%
Other
10
8%
Unknown
33
26%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 July 2024.
All research outputs
#11,244,710
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesiology Research & Practice
#52
of 151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,344
of 166,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesiology Research & Practice
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 166,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them
