↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intravenous immunoglobulin for treating sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
5 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
175 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
332 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Intravenous immunoglobulin for treating sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001090.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marissa M Alejandria, Mary Ann D Lansang, Leonila F Dans, Jacinto Blas Mantaring III

Abstract

Mortality from sepsis and septic shock remains high. Results of trials on intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) as adjunctive therapy for sepsis have been conflicting. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was originally published in 1999 and updated in 2002 and 2010.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 332 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 4 1%
United States 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 319 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 13%
Researcher 42 13%
Other 39 12%
Student > Bachelor 37 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 8%
Other 83 25%
Unknown 60 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 173 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 4%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 2%
Other 32 10%
Unknown 73 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,294,715
of 17,360,236 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,330
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,130
of 175,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#36
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,360,236 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 175,365 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 108 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 67% of its contemporaries.