↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

High‐volume haemofiltration for sepsis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
High‐volume 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 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 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 11 19%

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
#9,742,844
of 18,206,230 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,059
of 11,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,920
of 260,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#370
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,206,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,807 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 260,150 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.