↓ Skip to main content

A global perspective on vasoactive agents in shock

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, June 2018
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
Title
A global perspective on vasoactive agents in shock
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00134-018-5242-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Djillali Annane, Lamia Ouanes-Besbes, Daniel de Backer, Bin DU, Anthony C. Gordon, Glenn Hernández, Keith M. Olsen, Tiffany M. Osborn, Sandra Peake, James A. Russell, Sergio Zanotti Cavazzoni

Abstract

We set out to summarize the current knowledge on vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of shock to inform physicians' practices. This is a narrative review by a multidisciplinary, multinational-from six continents-panel of experts including physicians, a pharmacist, trialists, and scientists. Vasoactive drugs are an essential part of shock management. Catecholamines are the most commonly used vasoactive agents in the intensive care unit, and among them norepinephrine is the first-line therapy in most clinical conditions. Inotropes are indicated when myocardial function is depressed and dobutamine remains the first-line therapy. Vasoactive drugs have a narrow therapeutic spectrum and expose the patients to potentially lethal complications. Thus, these agents require precise therapeutic targets, close monitoring with titration to the minimal efficacious dose and should be weaned as promptly as possible. Moreover, the use of vasoactive drugs in shock requires an individualized approach. Vasopressin and possibly angiotensin II may be useful owing to their norepinephrine-sparing effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 24 17%
Student > Postgraduate 20 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Unspecified 13 9%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 53 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 81%
Unspecified 16 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Neuroscience 2 1%
Other 3 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 02 July 2018.
All research outputs
#883,406
of 13,796,475 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#539
of 3,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,458
of 274,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#61
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,796,475 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,583 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 274,180 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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 51% of its contemporaries.