↓ Skip to main content

The effects of goal-directed fluid therapy based on dynamic parameters on post-surgical outcome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 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
The effects of goal-directed fluid therapy based on dynamic parameters on post-surgical outcome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Critical Care, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0584-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Benes, Mariateresa Giglio, Nicola Brienza, Frederic Michard

Abstract

Dynamic predictors of fluid responsiveness, namely systolic pressure variation, pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation and pleth variability index have been shown to be useful to identify in advance patients who will respond to a fluid load by a significant increase in stroke volume and cardiac output. As a result, they are increasingly used to guide fluid therapy. Several randomized controlled trials have tested the ability of goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) based on dynamic parameters (GDFTdyn) to improve post-surgical outcome. These studies have yielded conflicting results. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to investigate whether the use of GDFTdyn is associated with a decrease in post-surgical morbidity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 6 3%
Turkey 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 164 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 19%
Other 28 16%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 16 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Other 50 28%
Unknown 14 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 124 70%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Engineering 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 25 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 02 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,413,579
of 14,995,775 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,887
of 4,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,514
of 234,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#68
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,995,775 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,692 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 234,406 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 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 68% of its contemporaries.