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 |
Open-chest versus closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in blunt trauma: analysis of a nationwide trauma registry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-017-1759-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Akira Endo, Atsushi Shiraishi, Yasuhiro Otomo, Makoto Tomita, Hiroki Matsui, Kiyoshi Murata |
| Abstract |
Although open-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OCCPR) is often considered as the last salvage maneuver in critically injured patients, evidence on the effectiveness of OCCPR has been based only on the descriptive studies of limited numbers of cases or expert opinions. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of OCCPR with that of closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCCPR) in an emergency department (ED). A nationwide registry-based, retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with blunt trauma, undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in an ED between 2004 and 2015 were identified and divided into OCCPR and CCCPR groups. Their outcomes (survival to hospital discharge and survival over 24 hours following ED arrival) were compared with propensity score matching analysis and instrumental variable analysis. A total of 6510 patients (OCCPR, 2192; CCCPR, 4318) were analyzed. The in-hospital and 24-hour survival rates in OCCPR patients were 1.8% (40/2192) and 5.6% (123/2192), and those in CCCPR patients were 3.6% (156/4318) and 9.6% (416/4318), respectively. In the propensity score-matched subjects, OCCPR patients (n = 1804) had significantly lower odds of survival to hospital discharge (odds ratio (95% CI)) = 0.41 (0.25-0.68)) and of survival over 24 hours following ED arrival (OR (95% CI) = 0.59 (0.45-0.79)) than CCCPR patients (n = 1804). Subgroup analysis revealed that OCCPR was associated with a poorer outcome compared to CCCPR in patients with severe pelvis and lower extremity injury. In this large cohort, OCCPR was associated with reduced in-hospital and 24-hour survival rates in patients with blunt trauma. Further comparisons between OCCPR and CCCPR using additional information, such as time course details in pre-hospital and ED settings, anatomical details regarding region of injury, and neurological outcomes, are necessary. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 9 | 15% |
| Spain | 8 | 14% |
| United States | 5 | 8% |
| Canada | 3 | 5% |
| Colombia | 3 | 5% |
| Japan | 2 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 39 | 66% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 17% |
| Scientists | 6 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 54% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 18 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,145,997
of 25,468,708 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#936
of 6,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,776
of 326,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#18
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,468,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 326,328 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.