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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 1 | 13% |
United States | 1 | 13% |
Japan | 1 | 13% |
Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 63% |
Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 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% |
Denmark | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Other | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 180 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 46 | 24% |
Other | 27 | 14% |
Student > Master | 21 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 9% |
Student > Bachelor | 16 | 8% |
Other | 50 | 26% |
Unknown | 15 | 8% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 147 | 76% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 4% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 4% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
Engineering | 3 | 2% |
Other | 9 | 5% |
Unknown | 16 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 26 October 2022.
All research outputs
#3,202,153
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,616
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,908
of 148,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#7
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. 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 148,926 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.