↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Plasma transfusion strategies for critically ill patients

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Plasma transfusion strategies for critically ill patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010654.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karam O, Tucci M, Combescure C, Lacroix J, Rimensberger PC

Abstract

Although plasma transfusions are frequently prescribed for critically ill patients, most clinical uses of plasma are not supported by evidence. Plasma transfusions do not seem to correct mild coagulation abnormalities based on international normalised ratio (INR) testing, but they seem to be independently associated with worse clinical outcomes in non-massively bleeding patients. Current recommendations on plasma transfusion strategies advocate limiting plasma transfusions to patients who are actively bleeding or who are at risk of bleeding and concomitantly have moderately abnormal coagulation tests.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Psychology 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 13 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 May 2016.
All research outputs
#5,220,523
of 18,639,770 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,569
of 11,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,911
of 283,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#104
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,639,770 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,836 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 283,009 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 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.