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 |
Transferring the critically ill patient: are we there yet?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-0749-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joep M Droogh, Marije Smit, Anthony R Absalom, Jack JM Ligtenberg, Jan G Zijlstra |
| Abstract |
During the past few decades the numbers of ICUs and beds has increased significantly, but so too has the demand for intensive care. Currently large, and increasing, numbers of critically ill patients require transfer between critical care units. Inter-unit transfer poses significant risks to critically ill patients, particularly those requiring multiple organ support. While the safety and quality of inter-unit and hospital transfers appear to have improved over the years, the effectiveness of specific measures to improve safety have not been confirmed by randomized controlled trials. It is generally accepted that critically ill patients should be transferred by specialized retrieval teams, but the composition, training and assessment of these teams is still a matter of debate. Since it is likely that the numbers and complexity of these transfers will increase in the near future, further studies are warranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 | 10 | 28% |
| United States | 6 | 17% |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | 6% |
| Italy | 2 | 6% |
| Turkey | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Greece | 1 | 3% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 25% |
| Scientists | 3 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 270 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 50 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 41 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 30 | 11% |
| Other | 24 | 9% |
| Researcher | 23 | 8% |
| Other | 52 | 19% |
| Unknown | 58 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 110 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 73 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 1% |
| Engineering | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 19 | 7% |
| Unknown | 63 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 22 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,369,961
of 25,801,916 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,158
of 6,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,404
of 397,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#70
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,801,916 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 6,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 397,815 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 466 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.