| Title |
Surviving sepsis: going beyond the guidelines
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, June 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2110-5820-1-17 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul E Marik |
| Abstract |
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign is a global effort to improve the care of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The first Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines were published in 2004 with an updated version published in 2008. These guidelines have been endorsed by many professional organizations throughout the world and come regarded as the standard of care for the management of patients with severe sepsis. Unfortunately, most of the recommendations of these guidelines are not evidence-based. Furthermore, the major components of the 6-hour bundle are based on a single-center study whose validity has been recently under increasing scrutiny. This paper reviews the validity of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 6-hour bundle and provides a more evidence-based approach to the initial resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 20% |
| Australia | 3 | 10% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 7% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 3% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 3% |
| Qatar | 1 | 3% |
| Philippines | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 53% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 228 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 4 | 2% |
| Canada | 4 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Bulgaria | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 2% |
| Unknown | 203 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 38 | 17% |
| Other | 32 | 14% |
| Researcher | 28 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 10% |
| Other | 68 | 30% |
| Unknown | 15 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 182 | 80% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | <1% |
| Chemistry | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 7% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 22 September 2015.
All research outputs
#1,031,776
of 23,509,253 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#115
of 1,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,038
of 113,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,070 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 113,845 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 96% of its contemporaries.
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 8 of them.