↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: International comparisons in critical care - lessons learned

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2012
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 (#22 of 5,027)
  • 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

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
541 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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
Clinical review: International comparisons in critical care - lessons learned
Published in
Critical Care, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Srinivas Murthy, Hannah Wunsch

Abstract

Critical care medicine is a global specialty and epidemiologic research among countries provides important data on availability of critical care resources, best practices, and alternative options for delivery of care. Understanding the diversity across healthcare systems allows us to explore that rich variability and understand better the nature of delivery systems and their impact on outcomes. However, because the delivery of ICU services is complex (for example, interplay of bed availability, cultural norms and population case-mix), the diversity among countries also creates challenges when interpreting and applying data. This complexity has profound influences on reported outcomes, often obscuring true differences. Future research should emphasize determination of resource data worldwide in order to understand current practices in different countries; this will permit rational pandemic and disaster planning, allow comparisons of in-ICU processes of care, and facilitate addition of pre- and post-ICU patient data to better interpret outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 541 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 133 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 22%
Other 19 14%
Student > Master 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 17 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Computer Science 5 4%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 23 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 234. 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 23 April 2020.
All research outputs
#74,863
of 15,908,399 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#22
of 5,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#332
of 126,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,908,399 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 5,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. 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 126,756 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 79 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.