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 |
Bench-to-bedside review: Treating acid–base abnormalities in the intensive care unit – the role of buffers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, May 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc2865 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brian K Gehlbach, Gregory A Schmidt |
| Abstract |
The recognition and management of acid-base disorders is a commonplace activity for intensivists. Despite the frequency with which non-bicarbonate-losing forms of metabolic acidosis such as lactic acidosis occurs in critically ill patients, treatment is controversial. This article describes the properties of several buffering agents and reviews the evidence for their clinical efficacy. The evidence supporting and refuting attempts to correct arterial pH through the administration of currently available buffers is presented. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 States | 5 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 16% |
| Australia | 2 | 8% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 36% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Uruguay | 1 | <1% |
| Iceland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 212 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 54 | 24% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 34 | 15% |
| Researcher | 30 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 18 | 8% |
| Professor | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 54 | 24% |
| Unknown | 18 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 187 | 83% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 1% |
| Chemistry | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 3% |
| Unknown | 20 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,434,137
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,129
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,615
of 63,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#4
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 63,118 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.