| Title |
Fluids in ARDS: more pros than cons
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, December 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40635-020-00319-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Renata de S. Mendes, Paolo Pelosi, Marcus J. Schultz, Patricia R. M. Rocco, Pedro L. Silva |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 15 | 23% |
| Ecuador | 5 | 8% |
| Brazil | 2 | 3% |
| Colombia | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Guatemala | 1 | 2% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 1 | 2% |
| Peru | 1 | 2% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 34 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 62 | 95% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 22 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 10 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,105,403
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#17
of 547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,044
of 526,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#2
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 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 547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 526,712 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.