↓ Skip to main content

Loop diuretics for patients receiving blood transfusions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Loop diuretics for patients receiving blood transfusions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010138.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Sarai, Aaron M Tejani

Abstract

Blood transfusions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Prophylactic administration of loop diuretics (furosemide, bumetanide, ethacrynic acid, or torsemide) is common practice, especially among people who are at risk for circulatory overload, pulmonary oedema or both.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Student > Master 13 17%
Student > Postgraduate 10 13%
Researcher 9 12%
Other 7 9%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 16 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 13 July 2019.
All research outputs
#963,319
of 14,116,115 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,906
of 10,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,997
of 216,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#81
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,116,115 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 216,037 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 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.