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 |
Establishing and Sustaining an ECPR Program
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pediatrics, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fped.2018.00152 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter C. Laussen, Anne-Marie Guerguerian |
| Abstract |
The use of extracorporeal support after failed return of a spontaneous ciruculation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is well described. There are 4 distinct phases for resuscitation with ECPR and the time spent in each phase is critical for successful outcome. Recommendations for ECPR previously published by the American Heart Association provide the context for implementing a consistent and well-rehearsed system for ECPR, by people with the knowledge, experience and resources to deploy ECPR in the most optimal time frame possible in selected patient populations. In this manuscript we review the current status of ECPR for acute cardiac failure and the components we believe are necessary to develop and sustain a reliable and resilient program. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 22% |
| Australia | 3 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| United States | 2 | 7% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 11% |
| Scientists | 3 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 24 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,056,907
of 23,051,185 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#309
of 6,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,469
of 329,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#11
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,051,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 329,262 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 86% 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 well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.