↓ Skip to main content

When to stop septic shock resuscitation: clues from a dynamic perfusion monitoring

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, October 2014
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
Title
When to stop septic shock resuscitation: clues from a dynamic perfusion monitoring
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13613-014-0030-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Glenn Hernandez, Cecilia Luengo, Alejandro Bruhn, Eduardo Kattan, Gilberto Friedman, Gustavo A Ospina-Tascon, Andrea Fuentealba, Ricardo Castro, Tomas Regueira, Carlos Romero, Can Ince, Jan Bakker

Abstract

The decision of when to stop septic shock resuscitation is a critical but yet a relatively unexplored aspect of care. This is especially relevant since the risks of over-resuscitation with fluid overload or inotropes have been highlighted in recent years. A recent guideline has proposed normalization of central venous oxygen saturation and/or lactate as therapeutic end-points, assuming that these variables are equivalent or interchangeable. However, since the physiological determinants of both are totally different, it is legitimate to challenge the rationale of this proposal. We designed this study to gain more insights into the most appropriate resuscitation goal from a dynamic point of view. Our objective was to compare the normalization rates of these and other potential perfusion-related targets in a cohort of septic shock survivors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Unknown 165 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 29 17%
Researcher 20 12%
Other 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Other 40 24%
Unknown 36 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 111 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Unspecified 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 38 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 12 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,845,307
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#219
of 1,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,437
of 256,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 256,089 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them