↓ Skip to main content

Albumin versus crystalloid solutions in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2014
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 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
Albumin versus crystalloid solutions in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13187
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Uhlig, Pedro L Silva, Stefanie Deckert, Jochen Schmitt, Marcelo Gama de Abreu

Abstract

In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) fluid therapy might be necessary. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effects of colloid therapy compared to crystalloids on mortality and oxygenation in adults with ARDS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Unknown 149 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 26 17%
Researcher 20 13%
Student > Postgraduate 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 53 34%
Unknown 13 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 119 76%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 19 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,857,117
of 16,038,550 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,681
of 5,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,176
of 268,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#37
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,038,550 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 268,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.