↓ Skip to main content

Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
459 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
662 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000567.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pablo Perel, Ian Roberts, Katharine Ker

Abstract

Colloid solutions are widely used in fluid resuscitation of critically ill patients. There are several choices of colloid, and there is ongoing debate about the relative effectiveness of colloids compared to crystalloid fluids.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 106 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 662 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Other 8 1%
Unknown 630 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 108 16%
Student > Master 103 16%
Researcher 82 12%
Student > Postgraduate 79 12%
Student > Bachelor 62 9%
Other 182 27%
Unknown 46 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 479 72%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 25 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 14 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 2%
Other 43 6%
Unknown 60 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 100. 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 26 November 2018.
All research outputs
#196,227
of 15,177,587 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#418
of 11,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,722
of 150,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,177,587 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 150,879 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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.