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 |
Continuous versus bolus intermittent loop diuretic infusion in acutely decompensated heart failure: a prospective randomized trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc13952 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alberto Palazzuoli, Marco Pellegrini, Gaetano Ruocco, Giuseppe Martini, Beatrice Franci, Maria Stella Campagna, Marilyn Gilleman, Ranuccio Nuti, Peter A McCullough, Claudio Ronco |
| Abstract |
Intravenous loop diuretics are a cornerstone of therapy in acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We sought to determine if there are any differences in clinical outcomes between intravenous bolus and continuous infusion of loop diuretics. |
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 Kingdom | 6 | 24% |
| United States | 3 | 12% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 8% |
| Greece | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 48% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 28% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 16% |
| Scientists | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 187 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 55 | 28% |
| Unknown | 43 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 101 | 52% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 8% |
| Unknown | 49 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 30 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,311,211
of 25,713,737 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,104
of 6,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,616
of 243,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#8
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,713,737 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,603 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 83% 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 243,371 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 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.