| Title |
The ICM research agenda on critical care ultrasonography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-017-4734-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P. Mayo, R. Arntfield, M. Balik, P. Kory, G. Mathis, G. Schmidt, M. Slama, G. Volpicelli, N. Xirouchaki, A. McLean, A. Vieillard-Baron |
| Abstract |
Critical care ultrasonography has utility for the diagnosis and management of critical illness and is in widespread use by frontline intensivists. As there is a need for research to validate and extend its utility, the Editor of Intensive Care Medicine included critical care ultrasonography as a topic in the ICM Research Agenda issue. Eleven international experts in the field of critical care ultrasonography contributed to the writing project. With the intention of developing a research agenda for the field, they reviewed best standards of care, new advances in the field, common beliefs that have been contradicted by recent trials, and unanswered questions related to critical care ultrasonography. The writing group focused on the provision of training in critical care ultrasonography, technological advances, and some specific clinical applications. The writing group identified several fields of interest for research and proposed ten research studies that would address important aspects of critical care ultrasonography. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 | 5 | 31% |
| United States | 2 | 13% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 6% |
| Norway | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 6% |
| Israel | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 44% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 17 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 69% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,256,456
of 24,938,276 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#2,064
of 5,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,179
of 313,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#68
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,938,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 313,458 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.