↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus other fluid therapies: effects on kidney function

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
221 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters 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 248 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 245 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 11%
Researcher 25 10%
Other 23 9%
Student > Postgraduate 20 8%
Other 74 30%
Unknown 47 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 144 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 18 7%
Unknown 54 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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
#1,872,897
of 23,122,481 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,156
of 12,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,913
of 198,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#84
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,122,481 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 12,372 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 198,875 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 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 65% of its contemporaries.