↓ Skip to main content

Insights and limits of translational research in critical care medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Insights and limits of translational research in critical care medicine
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13613-015-0050-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frédéric Pène, Hafid Ait-Oufella, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Guillaume Monneret, Tarek Sharshar, Fabienne Tamion, Jean-Paul Mira, on behalf of the Commission de Recherche Translationnelle de la Société de Réanimation de Langue Française (SRLF)

Abstract

Experimental research has always been the cornerstone of pathophysiological and therapeutic advances in critical care medicine, where clinical observations and basic research mutually fed each other in a so-called translational approach. The objective of this review is to address the different aspects of translational research in the field of critical care medicine. We herein highlighted some demonstrative examples including the animal-to-human approach to study host-pathogen interactions, the human-to-animal approach for sepsis-induced immunosuppression, the still restrictive human approach to study critical illness-related neuromyopathy, and the technological developments to assess the microcirculatory changes in critically ill patients. These examples not only emphasize how translational research resulted in major improvements in the comprehension of the pathophysiology of severe clinical conditions and offered promising perspectives in critical care medicine but also point out the obstacles to translate such achievements into clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Lecturer 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 6 26%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 39%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Computer Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 April 2015.
All research outputs
#20,269,439
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#954
of 1,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,426
of 263,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,042 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 263,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.