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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS for predicting adverse outcomes of patients with suspicion of sepsis outside the intensive care unit
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-017-1658-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eli J. Finkelsztein, Daniel S. Jones, Kevin C. Ma, Maria A. Pabón, Tatiana Delgado, Kiichi Nakahira, John E. Arbo, David A. Berlin, Edward J. Schenck, Augustine M. K. Choi, Ilias I. Siempos |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 11 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 9% |
| Spain | 9 | 9% |
| United States | 8 | 8% |
| Chile | 6 | 6% |
| Colombia | 4 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 3 | 3% |
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 24 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 67 | 70% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 17 | 18% |
| Scientists | 9 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 367 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 366 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 55 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 40 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 10% |
| Other | 34 | 9% |
| Researcher | 31 | 8% |
| Other | 92 | 25% |
| Unknown | 80 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 207 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 27 | 7% |
| Unknown | 87 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. 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 14 January 2018.
All research outputs
#704,987
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#483
of 6,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,313
of 323,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#9
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 323,736 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.