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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Assessment of tissue oxygen tension: comparison of dynamic fluorescence quenching and polarographic electrode technique
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, January 2002
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc1457 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew D Shaw, Zheng Li, Zach Thomas, Craig W Stevens |
| Abstract |
Dynamic fluorescence quenching is a technique that may overcome some of the limitations associated with measurement of tissue partial oxygen tension (PO2). We compared this technique with a polarographic Eppendorf needle electrode method using a saline tonometer in which the PO2 could be controlled. We also tested the fluorescence quenching system in a rodent model of skeletal muscle ischemiahypoxia. Both systems measured PO2 accurately in the tonometer, and there was excellent correlation between them (r(2) = 0.99). The polarographic system exhibited proportional bias that was not evident with the fluorescence method. In vivo, the fluorescence quenching technique provided a readily recordable signal that varied as expected. Measurement of tissue PO2 using fluorescence quenching is at least as accurate as measurement using the Eppendorf needle electrode in vitro, and may prove useful in vivo for assessment of tissue oxygenation. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 28% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 43% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Engineering | 5 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 December 2018.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,397
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,636
of 131,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 131,165 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.