| Title |
High-volume versus standard-volume haemofiltration for septic shock patients with acute kidney injury (IVOIRE study): a multicentre randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-013-2967-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Olivier Joannes-Boyau, Patrick M. Honoré, Paul Perez, Sean M. Bagshaw, Hubert Grand, Jean-Luc Canivet, Antoine Dewitte, Claire Flamens, Wilfried Pujol, Anne-Sophie Grandoulier, Catherine Fleureau, Rita Jacobs, Christophe Broux, Hervé Floch, Olivier Branchard, Stephane Franck, Hadrien Rozé, Vincent Collin, Willem Boer, Joachim Calderon, Bernard Gauche, Herbert D. Spapen, Gérard Janvier, Alexandre Ouattara |
| Abstract |
Septic shock is a leading cause of death among critically ill patients, in particular when complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI). Small experimental and human clinical studies have suggested that high-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) may improve haemodynamic profile and mortality. We sought to determine the impact of HVHF on 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with septic shock and AKI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 33% |
| Belgium | 2 | 17% |
| India | 1 | 8% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Scientists | 4 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 3 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 263 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 12% |
| Other | 32 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 30 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 7% |
| Other | 80 | 29% |
| Unknown | 56 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 176 | 64% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 14 | 5% |
| Unknown | 61 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 06 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,792,813
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,481
of 5,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,819
of 213,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#3
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 5,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 213,815 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 92% of its contemporaries.