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 |
Liberal versus conservative fluid therapy in adults and children with sepsis or septic shock
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010593.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danyang Li, Xueyang Li, Wei Cui, Huahao Shen, Hong Zhu, Yi Xia |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 18% |
| Japan | 1 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 65% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 233 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 10% |
| Researcher | 21 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 41 | 18% |
| Unknown | 90 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 75 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Unknown | 101 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 29 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,284,715
of 23,373,475 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,917
of 12,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,913
of 438,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#124
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,373,475 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 438,727 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 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.