| Title |
Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis in critically ill patients: a prospective, clinician-blinded investigation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-1009-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah L. Jones, Aiko Tanaka, Glenn M. Eastwood, Helen Young, Leah Peck, Rinaldo Bellomo, Johan Mårtensson |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 3 | 13% |
| Italy | 2 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | 9% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Greece | 1 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 48% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 26% |
| Scientists | 3 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 92 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Researcher | 13 | 14% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 27% |
| Unknown | 19 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 13% |
| Engineering | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 23 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#2,383,662
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,073
of 6,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,171
of 401,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#158
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 401,213 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 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.