| Title |
Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007594.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas C Mutter, Chelsea A Ruth, Allison B Dart |
| Abstract |
Hydroxyethyl starches (HES) are synthetic colloids commonly used for fluid resuscitation to replace intravascular volume, yet they have been increasingly associated with adverse effects on kidney function. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 2 | 18% |
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Finland | 1 | 9% |
| Peru | 1 | 9% |
| France | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 254 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 11% |
| Researcher | 25 | 10% |
| Other | 23 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 21 | 8% |
| Other | 74 | 29% |
| Unknown | 52 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 144 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 7 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 8% |
| Unknown | 60 | 23% |
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 14 February 2022.
All research outputs
#2,518,656
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,091
of 13,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,734
of 210,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 210,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 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 56% of its contemporaries.