↓ Skip to main content

Liver function during mechanical circulatory support: from witness to prognostic determinant

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Liver function during mechanical circulatory support: from witness to prognostic determinant
Published in
Critical Care, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1312-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Jung, Malte Kelm, Ralf Westenfeld

Abstract

In recent years, the treatment options for patients with severe cardiorespiratory failure have been extended by the implementation of mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Identification of patients that benefit most from this cost-intensive treatment modality is of central importance, but is also challenging. Previous studies unravelled certain patient characteristics that should be taken into account, such as age, weight, and underlying pathology, and also the delay until MCS implementation as well as tissue hypoxia as prognostic factors. Relevant comorbidities included neurologic, renal, and hepatic disorders. Of note, baseline liver function tests predicted outcome in patients on extracorporeal life support (ECLS), including short-term and long-term mortality. Most strikingly, increased levels of alkaline phosphatase and total bilirubin indicated unfavourable short-term and long-term survival even after adjustment for age, gender, left ventricular function, and relevant known comorbidities such as impaired renal function and diabetes. Therefore, the assessment of liver function tests may be regarded as another piece in the complex puzzle of our efforts perceiving the ideal ECLS candidate with positive long-term outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 60%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 29 June 2016.
All research outputs
#2,635,341
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,296
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,334
of 353,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#72
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 353,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.