↓ Skip to main content

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
228 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 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
Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007594.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas C Mutter, Chelsea A Ruth, Allison B Dart

Abstract

Hydroxyethyl starches (HES) are synthetic colloids commonly used for fluid resuscitation to replace intravascular volume, yet they have been increasingly associated with adverse effects on kidney function. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 194 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 13%
Researcher 24 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Other 19 10%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Other 68 35%
Unknown 20 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 129 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 27 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,259,105
of 16,713,463 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,330
of 11,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,391
of 162,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,713,463 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 162,707 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.