↓ Skip to main content

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fourth edition

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 6,614)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
511 X users
facebook
29 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
864 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1027 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fourth edition
Published in
Critical Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1265-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rolf Rossaint, Bertil Bouillon, Vladimir Cerny, Timothy J. Coats, Jacques Duranteau, Enrique Fernández-Mondéjar, Daniela Filipescu, Beverley J. Hunt, Radko Komadina, Giuseppe Nardi, Edmund A. M. Neugebauer, Yves Ozier, Louis Riddez, Arthur Schultz, Jean-Louis Vincent, Donat R. Spahn

Abstract

Severe trauma continues to represent a global public health issue and mortality and morbidity in trauma patients remains substantial. A number of initiatives have aimed to provide guidance on the management of trauma patients. This document focuses on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles to each local situation and implementation within each institution. The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004 and included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group used a structured, evidence-based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale. Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered, particularly in areas in which randomised clinical trials have not or cannot be performed. Existing recommendations were reconsidered and revised based on new scientific evidence and observed shifts in clinical practice; new recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated. This guideline represents the fourth edition of a document first published in 2007 and updated in 2010 and 2013. The guideline now recommends that patients be transferred directly to an appropriate trauma treatment centre and encourages use of a restricted volume replacement strategy during initial resuscitation. Best-practice use of blood products during further resuscitation continues to evolve and should be guided by a goal-directed strategy. The identification and management of patients pre-treated with anticoagulant agents continues to pose a real challenge, despite accumulating experience and awareness. The present guideline should be viewed as an educational aid to improve and standardise the care of the bleeding trauma patients across Europe and beyond. This document may also serve as a basis for local implementation. Furthermore, local quality and safety management systems need to be established to specifically assess key measures of bleeding control and outcome. A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. The implementation of locally adapted treatment algorithms should strive to achieve measureable improvements in patient outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 511 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,027 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 1018 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 132 13%
Other 125 12%
Student > Bachelor 110 11%
Student > Master 108 11%
Researcher 103 10%
Other 220 21%
Unknown 229 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 570 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 90 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 1%
Other 63 6%
Unknown 266 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 408. 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 10 March 2023.
All research outputs
#74,030
of 25,766,791 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#16
of 6,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,421
of 317,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,766,791 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,614 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 317,222 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.