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 |
Epinephrine for prehospital cardiac arrest with non-shockable rhythm
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc13044 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samuel J Stratton |
| Abstract |
Cardiopulmonary arrest research and guidelines have generally focused on the treatment and management of ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular fibrillation (electrical shockable rhythms). Less investigation has been done on the subpopulation of cardiopulmonary arrest victims that present with non-shockable rhythms. In a new paper, Goto, Maeda, and Goto present evidence that early use of epinephrine for treatment is associated with better survival with functional outcome. While there is a lack of evidence to support epinephrine for management of cardiopulmonary arrest presenting with initial shockable rhythms (presumed primary cardiac origin), there is now evidence that epinephrine may potentially benefit those presenting with non-shockable cardiopulmonary arrest (presumed heterogeneous origins). Further research on non-shockable rhythm cardiopulmonary arrest is needed to understand the subpopulation and develop better treatment guidelines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 29% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 18% |
| Researcher | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 65% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 18% |
| 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 12 February 2014.
All research outputs
#16,580,157
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,358
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,940
of 220,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#71
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 220,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.