↓ Skip to main content

Deeper understanding of mechanisms contributing to sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Deeper understanding of mechanisms contributing to sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction
Published in
Critical Care, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13853
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith R Walley

Abstract

The inflammatory response of sepsis results in organ dysfunction, including myocardial dysfunction. Myocardial dysfunction is particularly important in patients with severe septic shock who progress to a hypodynamic pre-terminal phase. Multiple aspects of this septic inflammatory response contribute to the pathogenesis of decreased ventricular contractility. Inflammatory cytokines released by inflammatory cells contribute as does nitric oxide released by vascular endothelium and by cardiomyocytes. Endotoxins and other pathogen molecules induce an intramyocardial inflammatory response by binding Toll-like receptors on cardiomyocytes that then signal via NF-κB. These processes alter cardiomyocyte depolarization and, therefore, contractility. The particular role of the cardiomyocyte sodium current has not been characterized. Now new information suggests that the septic inflammatory response impairs normal depolarization by altering the cardiomyocyte sodium current. This results in decreased ventricular contractility. This is important because new targets for therapeutic intervention can be considered and new approaches to evaluation of this problem can be contemplated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 70%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 7%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 May 2014.
All research outputs
#5,446,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,509
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,409
of 242,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#57
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 242,177 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.