↓ Skip to main content

Clinical effectiveness of fresh frozen plasma compared with fibrinogen concentrate: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2011
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
165 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 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
Clinical effectiveness of fresh frozen plasma compared with fibrinogen concentrate: a systematic review
Published in
Critical Care, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/cc10488
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sibylle Kozek-Langenecker, Benny Sørensen, John R Hess, Donat R Spahn

Abstract

Haemostatic therapy in surgical and/or massive trauma patients typically involves transfusion of fresh frozen plasma (FFP). Purified human fibrinogen concentrate may offer an alternative to FFP in some instances. In this systematic review, we investigated the current evidence for the use of FFP and fibrinogen concentrate in the perioperative or massive trauma setting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 155 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 25%
Other 25 15%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Postgraduate 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 45 27%
Unknown 7 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 136 80%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 10 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,856,704
of 14,948,564 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,634
of 4,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,703
of 103,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#5
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,948,564 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,680 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 103,219 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.