↓ Skip to main content

Does vasopressor therapy have an indication in hemorrhagic shock?

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Does vasopressor therapy have an indication in hemorrhagic shock?
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-3-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

François Beloncle, Ferhat Meziani, Nicolas Lerolle, Peter Radermacher, Pierre Asfar

Abstract

This review aimed to answer whether the vasopressors are useful at the early phase of hemorrhagic shock. Data were taken from published experimental studies and clinical trials. Published case reports were discarded. A search of electronic database PubMed was conducted using keywords of hemorrhagic shock, vasopressors, vasoconstrictors, norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin. The redundant papers were not included. We identified 15 experimental studies that compared hemorrhagic shock resuscitated with or without vasopressors, three retrospective clinical studies, and one controlled trial. The experimental and clinical studies are discussed in the clinical context, and their strengths as well as limitations are highlighted. There is a strong rationale for a vasopressor support in severe hemorrhagic shock. However, this should be tempered by the risk of excessive vasoconstriction during such hypovolemic state. The experimental models must be analyzed within their own limits and cannot be directly translated into clinical practice. In addition, because of many biases, the results of clinical trials are debatable. Therefore, based on current information, further clinical trials comparing early vasopressor support plus fluid resuscitation versus fluid resuscitation alone are warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Andorra 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 16%
Student > Postgraduate 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 14 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 67%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 19 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,318,499
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#779
of 1,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,428
of 201,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 201,248 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.