↓ 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
28 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 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 224 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 16%
Student > Master 27 12%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Postgraduate 22 10%
Other 19 8%
Other 48 21%
Unknown 52 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 105 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 16 7%
Unknown 54 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,220,459
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,027
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,260
of 329,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#26
of 112 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 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 84% 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 329,220 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 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.