↓ Skip to main content

Does vasopressor therapy have an indication in hemorrhagic shock?

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Does vasopressor therapy have an indication in hemorrhagic shock?
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-3-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

François Beloncle, Ferhat Meziani, Nicolas Lerolle, Peter Radermacher, Pierre Asfar

Abstract

This review aimed to answer whether the vasopressors are useful at the early phase of hemorrhagic shock. Data were taken from published experimental studies and clinical trials. Published case reports were discarded. A search of electronic database PubMed was conducted using keywords of hemorrhagic shock, vasopressors, vasoconstrictors, norepinephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin. The redundant papers were not included. We identified 15 experimental studies that compared hemorrhagic shock resuscitated with or without vasopressors, three retrospective clinical studies, and one controlled trial. The experimental and clinical studies are discussed in the clinical context, and their strengths as well as limitations are highlighted. There is a strong rationale for a vasopressor support in severe hemorrhagic shock. However, this should be tempered by the risk of excessive vasoconstriction during such hypovolemic state. The experimental models must be analyzed within their own limits and cannot be directly translated into clinical practice. In addition, because of many biases, the results of clinical trials are debatable. Therefore, based on current information, further clinical trials comparing early vasopressor support plus fluid resuscitation versus fluid resuscitation alone are warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Andorra 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 79 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 17%
Student > Postgraduate 12 14%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 69%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 17 20%

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 01 May 2016.
All research outputs
#4,839,665
of 18,796,975 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#397
of 872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,900
of 169,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,796,975 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 169,372 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.