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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Conceptual Framework for Optimizing Blood Matching Strategies: Balancing Patient Complications Against Total Costs Incurred
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Medicine, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmed.2018.00199 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joost H. J. van Sambeeck, Puck D. de Wit, Jessie Luken, Barbera Veldhuisen, Katja van den Hurk, Anne van Dongen, Maria M. W. Koopman, Marian G. J. van Kraaij, C. Ellen van der Schoot, Henk Schonewille, Wim L. A. M. de Kort, Mart P. Janssen |
| Abstract |
Alloimmunization is currently the most frequent adverse blood transfusion event. Whilst completely matched donor blood would nullify the alloimmunization risk, this is practically infeasible. Current matching strategies therefore aim at matching a limited number of blood groups only, and have evolved over time by systematically including matching strategies for those blood groups for which (serious) alloimmunization complications most frequently occurred. An optimal matching strategy for controlling the risk of alloimmunization however, would balance alloimmunization complications and costs within the entire blood supply chain, whilst fulfilling all practical requirements and limitations. In this article the outline of an integrated blood management model is described and various potential challenges and prospects foreseen with the development of such a model are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 48% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 5 | 15% |
| Decision Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 15 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,643,992
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#4,069
of 5,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,209
of 330,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#55
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 330,303 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.