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 |
Arterial blood pressure targets in septic shock: is it time to move to an individualized approach?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-0958-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thiago Domingos Corrêa, Stephan Matthias Jakob, Jukka Takala |
| Abstract |
Xu and colleagues evaluated the impact of increasing mean arterial blood pressure levels through norepinephrine administration on systemic hemodynamics, tissue perfusion, and sublingual microcirculation of septic shock patients with chronic hypertension. The authors concluded that, although increasing arterial blood pressure improved sublingual microcirculation parameters, no concomitant improvement in systemic tissue perfusion indicators was found. Here, we discuss why resuscitation targets may need to be individualized, taking into account the patient's baseline condition, and present directions for future research in this field. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 States | 9 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 7% |
| Paraguay | 1 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Greece | 1 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
| Scientists | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Turkey | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 16 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 60% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 06 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,265,224
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,988
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,718
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#147
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 69% 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 395,397 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 90% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.