↓ Skip to main content

Targeted Temperature Management at 33°C versus 36°C after Cardiac Arrest

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1645 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1469 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
Title
Targeted Temperature Management at 33°C versus 36°C after Cardiac Arrest
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, December 2013
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1310519
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niklas Nielsen, Jørn Wetterslev, Tobias Cronberg, David Erlinge, Yvan Gasche, Christian Hassager, Janneke Horn, Jan Hovdenes, Jesper Kjaergaard, Michael Kuiper, Tommaso Pellis, Pascal Stammet, Michael Wanscher, Matt P. Wise, Anders Åneman, Nawaf Al-Subaie, Søren Boesgaard, John Bro-Jeppesen, Iole Brunetti, Jan Frederik Bugge, Christopher D. Hingston, Nicole P. Juffermans, Matty Koopmans, Lars Køber, Jørund Langørgen, Gisela Lilja, Jacob Eifer Møller, Malin Rundgren, Christian Rylander, Ondrej Smid, Christophe Werer, Per Winkel, Hans Friberg

Abstract

Unconscious survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have a high risk of death or poor neurologic function. Therapeutic hypothermia is recommended by international guidelines, but the supporting evidence is limited, and the target temperature associated with the best outcome is unknown. Our objective was to compare two target temperatures, both intended to prevent fever.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 558 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 1,469 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 20 1%
Canada 8 <1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
Italy 5 <1%
Brazil 5 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Netherlands 4 <1%
Japan 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Other 23 2%
Unknown 1387 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 286 19%
Researcher 228 16%
Student > Postgraduate 161 11%
Student > Bachelor 134 9%
Student > Master 133 9%
Other 407 28%
Unknown 120 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1101 75%
Nursing and Health Professions 58 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 3%
Neuroscience 18 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 <1%
Other 68 5%
Unknown 170 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 695. 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 20 July 2020.
All research outputs
#12,840
of 15,934,748 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#596
of 27,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134
of 260,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#7
of 318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,934,748 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 27,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 83.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 260,381 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 318 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.