↓ Skip to main content

Debate on HES safety is important, but must be based on facts

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Debate on HES safety is important, but must be based on facts
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1757-7241-21-66
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolai Haase, Rasmus Müller, Anders Perner

Abstract

The Scandinavian Starch for Severe Sepsis / Septic Shock (6S) trial showed that hydroxyethyl starch was harmful compared to Ringer's acetate in patients with severe sepsis when used according to clinical practice and in alignment with the recommendations by the manufactures and authorities. The different interpretation by Chapell and Jacob's rely on misreading of the trial publication and is not supported by the trial data. Several hypotheses may be made regarding less harmful ways of using HES in critically ill patients, but clinicians, guideline committee members and authorities need to acknowledge that such safer ways have not yet been identified.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Lecturer 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 76%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Unknown 2 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 October 2014.
All research outputs
#1,784,633
of 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#152
of 361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,932
of 122,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 58th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 361 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 122,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.