↓ Skip to main content

Surviving sepsis: a guide to the guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Surviving sepsis: a guide to the guidelines
Published in
Critical Care, June 2008
DOI 10.1186/cc6924
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-Louis Vincent, Jean-Louis Vincent, John C Marshall

Abstract

The revised Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock have recently been published. These guidelines represent the end product of an intense process and provide a template approach to the early resuscitation and support of patients with sepsis, based on a synthesis of evidence that has been shown to improve the outcome of the septic patient. The SSC guidelines arose from a recognition that care of the septic patient was suboptimal for at least three reasons. First, the entity of sepsis was frequently not diagnosed in a timely fashion, allowing the process to evolve into a life-threatening syndrome of major physiologic organ system dysfunction. Secondly, even when sepsis was recognized, the urgency of treatment was underappreciated - and so haemodynamic resuscitation was tentative, and the administration of effective antibiotic therapy was often delayed. Finally, treatment was often suboptimal, and failed to take advantage of emerging insights into optimal approaches to patient management. The revised guidelines are far from perfect, but they represent the best available synthesis of contemporary knowledge in this area and as such should be promoted.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Canada 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Guatemala 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 70 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 20%
Student > Postgraduate 11 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 14%
Student > Master 8 11%
Professor 7 9%
Other 23 30%
Unknown 1 1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 79%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Neuroscience 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 3 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 July 2008.
All research outputs
#503,233
of 3,684,317 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#420
of 2,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#414,542
of 2,768,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#418
of 2,121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,684,317 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,210 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 2,768,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.