↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
44 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
243 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
744 Mendeley
Title
Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0216-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xavier Monnet, Paul E. Marik, Jean-Louis Teboul

Abstract

In patients with acute circulatory failure, the decision to give fluids or not should not be taken lightly. The risk of overzealous fluid administration has been clearly established. Moreover, volume expansion does not always increase cardiac output as one expects. Thus, after the very initial phase and/or if fluid losses are not obvious, predicting fluid responsiveness should be the first step of fluid strategy. For this purpose, the central venous pressure as well as other "static" markers of preload has been used for decades, but they are not reliable. Robust evidence suggests that this traditional use should be abandoned. Over the last 15 years, a number of dynamic tests have been developed. These tests are based on the principle of inducing short-term changes in cardiac preload, using heart-lung interactions, the passive leg raise or by the infusion of small volumes of fluid, and to observe the resulting effect on cardiac output. Pulse pressure and stroke volume variations were first developed, but they are reliable only under strict conditions. The variations in vena caval diameters share many limitations of pulse pressure variations. The passive leg-raising test is now supported by solid evidence and is more frequently used. More recently, the end-expiratory occlusion test has been described, which is easily performed in ventilated patients. Unlike the traditional fluid challenge, these dynamic tests do not lead to fluid overload. The dynamic tests are complementary, and clinicians should choose between them based on the status of the patient and the cardiac output monitoring technique. Several methods and tests are currently available to identify preload responsiveness. All have some limitations, but they are frequently complementary. Along with elements indicating the risk of fluid administration, they should help clinicians to take the decision to administer fluids or not in a reasoned way.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 744 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 737 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 131 18%
Student > Postgraduate 125 17%
Researcher 76 10%
Student > Master 75 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 8%
Other 163 22%
Unknown 116 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 516 69%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 12 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 1%
Engineering 9 1%
Other 32 4%
Unknown 136 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 04 June 2021.
All research outputs
#662,794
of 18,907,259 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#71
of 874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,131
of 407,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#2
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,907,259 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 407,131 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.