↓ Skip to main content

Exploring mechanisms of excess mortality with early fluid resuscitation: insightsfrom the FEAST trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
212 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
317 Mendeley
Title
Exploring mechanisms of excess mortality with early fluid resuscitation: insightsfrom the FEAST trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-68
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn Maitland, Elizabeth C George, Jennifer A Evans, Sarah Kiguli, Peter Olupot-Olupot, Samuel O Akech, Robert O Opoka, Charles Engoru, Richard Nyeko, George Mtove, Hugh Reyburn, Bernadette Brent, Julius Nteziyaremye, Ayub Mpoya, Natalie Prevatt, Cornelius M Dambisya, Daniel Semakula, Ahmed Ddungu, Vicent Okuuny, Ronald Wokulira, Molline Timbwa, Benedict Otii, Michael Levin, Jane Crawley, Abdel G Babiker, Diana M Gibb, for the FEAST trial group

Abstract

Early rapid fluid resuscitation (boluses) in African children with severe febrile illnesses increases the 48-hour mortality by 3.3% compared with controls (no bolus). We explored the effect of boluses on 48-hour all-cause mortality by clinical presentation at enrolment, hemodynamic changes over the first hour, and on different modes of death, according to terminal clinical events. We hypothesize that boluses may cause excess deaths from neurological or respiratory events relating to fluid overload.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 X users 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 317 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 306 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 42 13%
Student > Master 39 12%
Researcher 36 11%
Student > Bachelor 35 11%
Student > Postgraduate 34 11%
Other 86 27%
Unknown 45 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 219 69%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 <1%
Computer Science 2 <1%
Other 12 4%
Unknown 56 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 13 November 2019.
All research outputs
#418,334
of 24,590,593 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#315
of 3,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,733
of 200,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#8
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,590,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 200,198 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 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 92% of its contemporaries.