↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Mass casualty triage – pandemic influenza and critical care

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2007
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 (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Clinical review: Mass casualty triage – pandemic influenza and critical care
Published in
Critical Care, April 2007
DOI 10.1186/cc5732
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirsty Challen, Andrew Bentley, John Bright, Darren Walter

Abstract

Worst case scenarios for pandemic influenza planning in the US involve over 700,000 patients requiring mechanical ventilation. UK planning predicts a 231% occupancy of current level 3 (intensive care unit) bed capacity. Critical care planners need to recognise that mortality is likely to be high and the risk to healthcare workers significant. Contingency planning should, therefore, be multi-faceted, involving a robust health command structure, the facility to expand critical care provision in terms of space, equipment and staff and cohorting of affected patients in the early stages. It should also be recognised that despite this expansion of critical care, demand will exceed supply and a process for triage needs to be developed that is valid, reproducible, transparent and consistent with distributive justice. We advocate the development and validation of physiological scores for use as a triage tool, coupled with candid public discussion of the process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 22%
Student > Master 13 16%
Other 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Engineering 5 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 12 15%
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 15 December 2021.
All research outputs
#5,446,629
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,509
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,345
of 86,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 86,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.