↓ Skip to main content

A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
A Systematic Review of the Quality of IV Fluid Therapy in Veterinary Medicine
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00127
Pubmed ID
Authors

William W. Muir, Yukie Ueyama, Jessica Noel-Morgan, Allison Kilborne, Jessica Page

Abstract

To evaluate the quality of the veterinary literature investigating IV fluid therapy in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle. Systematic review. The preferred reporting of items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) was employed for systematic review of all relevant IV fluid therapy manuscripts published from January 1969 through December 2016 in the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International (CABI) database. Independent grading systems used to evaluate manuscripts included the updated CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2012 checklist, risk of bias for animal intervention studies, criteria for levels of evidence, and methodological quality (Jadad scale). The quality of articles published before and after 2010 was compared. One hundred and thirty-nine articles (63 dogs, 7 cats, 39 horses, 30 cattle) from 7,258 met the inclusion criteria. More than 50% of the manuscripts did not comply with minimal requirements for reporting randomized controlled trials. The most non-compliant items included identification of specific predefined objectives or a hypothesis, identification of trial design, how sample size was determined, randomization, and blinding procedures. Most studies were underpowered and at risk for selection, performance, and detection bias. The overall quality of the articles improved for articles published after 2010. Most of the veterinary literature investigating the administration of IV fluid therapy in dogs, cats, horses, and cattle is descriptive, does not comply with standards for evidence, or provide adequate translation to clinical practice. Authors should employ and journal editors should enforce international consensus recommendations and guidelines for publication of data from animal experiments investigating IV fluid therapy.

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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Master 8 12%
Other 6 9%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 34 49%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,779,275
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#940
of 6,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,072
of 317,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#17
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 317,683 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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 70% of its contemporaries.