↓ Skip to main content

High-volume versus standard-volume haemofiltration for septic shock patients with acute kidney injury (IVOIRE study): a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
189 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 170 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 16%
Other 25 14%
Student > Postgraduate 21 12%
Unspecified 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Other 67 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 136 76%
Unspecified 25 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 7 4%

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 14 March 2019.
All research outputs
#778,615
of 13,494,857 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#467
of 3,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,452
of 155,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,494,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 155,410 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 93% of its contemporaries.