The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Highâvolume haemofiltration for sepsis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008075.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Borthwick EM, Hill CJ, Rabindranath KS, Maxwell AP, McAuley DF, Blackwood B, Borthwick, Emma MJ, Hill, Christopher J, Rabindranath, Kannaiyan S, Maxwell, Alexander P, McAuley, Danny F, Blackwood, Bronagh |
| Abstract |
Severe sepsis and septic shock are leading causes of death in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is despite advances in the management of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock including early recognition, source control, timely and appropriate administration of antimicrobial agents, and goal directed haemodynamic, ventilatory and metabolic therapies. High-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) is a blood purification technique which may improve outcomes in critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The technique of HVHF has evolved from renal replacement therapies used to treat acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients in the ICU. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 63% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2016.
All research outputs
#14,736,622
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,690
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,805
of 291,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#114
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 291,911 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.