↓ Skip to main content

Should we treat pyrexia? And how do we do it?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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.
Title
Should we treat pyrexia? And how do we do it?
Published in
Critical Care, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1467-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

James F. Doyle, Frédérique Schortgen

Abstract

The concept of pyrexia as a protective physiological response to aid in host defence has been challenged with the awareness of the severe metabolic stress induced by pyrexia. The host response to pyrexia varies, however, according to the disease profile and severity and, as such, the management of pyrexia should differ; for example, temperature control is safe and effective in septic shock but remains controversial in sepsis. From the reported findings discussed in this review, treating pyrexia appears to be beneficial in septic shock, out of hospital cardiac arrest and acute brain injury.Multiple therapeutic options are available for managing pyrexia, with precise targeted temperature management now possible. Notably, the use of pharmacotherapy versus surface cooling has not been shown to be advantageous. The importance of avoiding hypothermia in any treatment strategy is not to be understated.Whilst a great deal of progress has been made regarding optimal temperature management in recent years, further studies will be needed to determine which patients would benefit the most from control of pyrexia and by which means this should be implemented. This narrative review is part of a series on the pathophysiology and management of pyrexia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Master 18 13%
Other 18 13%
Student > Postgraduate 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Other 40 28%
Unknown 14 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 16 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 19 March 2020.
All research outputs
#620,774
of 15,031,909 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#563
of 4,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,318
of 269,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#9
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,031,909 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 269,579 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.