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 |
Warming of intravenous and irrigation fluids for preventing inadvertent perioperative hypothermia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009891.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gillian Campbell, Phil Alderson, Andrew F Smith, Sheryl Warttig |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
| Comoros | 1 | 25% |
| Denmark | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 486 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 483 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 65 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 51 | 10% |
| Researcher | 38 | 8% |
| Other | 35 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 6% |
| Other | 96 | 20% |
| Unknown | 170 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 143 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 79 | 16% |
| Psychology | 11 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 50 | 10% |
| Unknown | 185 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 25 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,914,301
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,087
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,039
of 279,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#90
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 279,397 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 233 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 61% of its contemporaries.