↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Parenteral calcium for intensive care unit patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Parenteral calcium for intensive care unit patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006163.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raquel M Forsythe, Charles B Wessel, Timothy R Billiar, Derek C Angus, Matthew R Rosengart

Abstract

Hypocalcemia is prevalent among critically ill patients requiring intensive care. Several epidemiological studies highlight a direct association between hypocalcemia and mortality. These data provide the impetus for current guidelines recommending parenteral calcium administration to normalize serum calcium. However, in light of the considerable variation in the threshold for calcium replacement, the lack of evidence to support a causal role of hypocalcemia in mortality, and animal studies illustrating that calcium supplementation may worsen outcomes, a systematic review is essential to evaluate whether or not the practice of calcium supplementation for intensive care unit (ICU) patients provides any benefit.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Brazil 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 120 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Other 10 8%
Other 37 29%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 29 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 July 2014.
All research outputs
#2,922,837
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,928
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,143
of 192,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 192,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.