↓ Skip to main content

Liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy in sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
73 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
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.
Title
Liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy in sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Published in
Critical Care, July 2019
DOI 10.1186/s13054-019-2543-1
Authors

Yohei Hirano, Yukari Miyoshi, Yutaka Kondo, Ken Okamoto, Hiroshi Tanaka

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 73 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 65%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 05 December 2019.
All research outputs
#524,949
of 15,705,140 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#426
of 4,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,991
of 262,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,705,140 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,965 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 262,200 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them