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 |
Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis in the critically ill: cool tool or just another ‘toy’?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-1110-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lui G. Forni, Julia Hasslacher, Michael Joannidis |
| Abstract |
Assessment of volume and hydration status is far from easy and therefore technology such as bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) may complement our examination techniques. This study highlights the fact that clinical assessment of volume balance and BIVA may correlate, but whether the routine use of BIVA will avoid significant volume overload in the critically ill remains unknown. Further studies are needed but at the moment appear a little way off. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 Kingdom | 3 | 30% |
| Colombia | 1 | 10% |
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| Mexico | 1 | 10% |
| Greece | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 20% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 20% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 13% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 November 2015.
All research outputs
#6,265,309
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,604
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,604
of 395,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#305
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th 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 is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 395,418 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 77% 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 is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.