↓ Skip to main content

Choices in fluid type and volume during resuscitation: impact on patient outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, December 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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
237 Mendeley
Title
Choices in fluid type and volume during resuscitation: impact on patient outcomes
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13613-014-0038-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alena Lira, Michael R Pinsky

Abstract

We summarize the emerging new literature regarding the pathophysiological principles underlying the beneficial and deleterious effects of fluid administration during resuscitation, as well as current recommendations and recent clinical evidence regarding specific colloids and crystalloids. This systematic review allows us to conclude that there is no clear benefit associated with the use of colloids compared to crystalloids and no evidence to support the unique benefit of albumin as a resuscitation fluid. Hydroxyethyl starch use has been associated with increased acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of renal replacement therapy. Other synthetic colloids (dextran and gelatins) though not well studied do not appear superior to crystalloids. Normal saline (NS) use is associated with hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis and increased risk of AKI. This risk is decreased when balanced salt solutions are used. Balanced crystalloid solutions have shown no harmful effects, and there is evidence for benefit over NS. Finally, fluid resuscitation should be applied in a goal-directed manner and targeted to physiologic needs of individual patients. The evidence supports use of fluids in volume-responsive patients whose end-organ perfusion parameters have not been met.

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 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 229 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 36 15%
Student > Bachelor 32 14%
Other 30 13%
Student > Master 30 13%
Researcher 28 12%
Other 61 26%
Unknown 20 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 178 75%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 4%
Engineering 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 31 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 16 May 2015.
All research outputs
#2,928,761
of 19,171,602 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#283
of 884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,265
of 329,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,171,602 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 329,783 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 66% of its contemporaries.