↓ Skip to main content

The ICM research agenda on critical care ultrasonography

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, March 2017
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 (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 9 18%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Professor 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 10%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 82%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Unknown 6 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,760,662
of 14,079,161 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#949
of 3,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,342
of 258,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#36
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,079,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 258,435 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.