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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Clinical review: Update on hemodynamic monitoring - a consensus of 16
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc10291 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-Louis Vincent, Andrew Rhodes, Azriel Perel, Greg S Martin, Giorgio Della Rocca, Benoit Vallet, Michael R Pinsky, Christoph K Hofer, Jean-Louis Teboul, Willem-Pieter de Boode, Sabino Scolletta, Antoine Vieillard-Baron, Daniel De Backer, Keith R Walley, Marco Maggiorini, Mervyn Singer |
| Abstract |
Hemodynamic monitoring plays a fundamental role in the management of acutely ill patients. With increased concerns about the use of invasive techniques, notably the pulmonary artery catheter, to measure cardiac output, recent years have seen an influx of new, less-invasive means of measuring hemodynamic variables, leaving the clinician somewhat bewildered as to which technique, if any, is best and which he/she should use. In this consensus paper, we try to provide some clarification, offering an objective review of the available monitoring systems, including their specific advantages and limitations, and highlighting some key principles underlying hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 44% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Greece | 1 | 11% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 11% |
| Mexico | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 621 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 5 | <1% |
| Italy | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| South Africa | 3 | <1% |
| Turkey | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 12 | 2% |
| Unknown | 587 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 92 | 15% |
| Researcher | 91 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 80 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 60 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 52 | 8% |
| Other | 163 | 26% |
| Unknown | 83 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 432 | 70% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 4% |
| Engineering | 24 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 7 | 1% |
| Other | 27 | 4% |
| Unknown | 97 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 06 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,356,906
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,172
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,850
of 133,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 133,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.