↓ 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
176 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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 13 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 155 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 152 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 15%
Student > Master 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Other 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 9%
Other 52 34%
Unknown 13 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 70%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 18 12%

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 16 August 2013.
All research outputs
#889,254
of 13,119,089 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,811
of 10,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,203
of 153,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#29
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,119,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 153,785 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.