↓ Skip to main content

Should heparin-binding protein levels be routinely monitored in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Should heparin-binding protein levels be routinely monitored in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock?
Published in
Critical Care, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11379
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michal Holub, Ondřj Beran

Abstract

Heparin-binding protein (HBP), also known as azurocidin, has multiple functions in the inflammatory process, especially during severe infections. Beside its antimicrobial properties, HBP may induce vascular leakage leading to extravascular efflux, which is an important pathophysiologic event in the development of septic shock. Not surprisingly, high HBP plasma levels are found in severe sepsis patients and in septic shock patients as well as in serious infections associated with endothelial damage. In the present issue of Critical Care, Linder and colleagues demonstrate new aspects of HBP daily monitoring in ICU patients. The authors observed that high HBP plasma levels are associated with an increased mortality rate in both septic and nonseptic critically ill patients, indicating that HBP may be a reliable prognostic biomarker. However, there are some limitations hindering rapid translation of these interesting findings into the daily routine. First, the group of nonseptic critically ill patients (n = 28) enrolled in the study was rather small as compared with the septic group (n = 151). Moreover, 50% of nonseptic patients developed infection while hospitalized in the ICU, and to classify them as truly nonseptic patients is problematic. Second, there is a lack of a routine diagnostic method for HBP analysis. Nevertheless, if the results of the present study are validated in large clinical trials in different ICU populations and cost-effectiveness data become available, the serial HBP measurements will have a promising future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 4%
Brazil 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Other 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Professor 4 14%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 61%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 July 2012.
All research outputs
#8,186,806
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,292
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,515
of 177,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#45
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 177,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.