| Title |
Debate on HES safety is important, but must be based on facts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1757-7241-21-66 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolai Haase, Rasmus Müller, Anders Perner |
| Abstract |
The Scandinavian Starch for Severe Sepsis / Septic Shock (6S) trial showed that hydroxyethyl starch was harmful compared to Ringer's acetate in patients with severe sepsis when used according to clinical practice and in alignment with the recommendations by the manufactures and authorities. The different interpretation by Chapell and Jacob's rely on misreading of the trial publication and is not supported by the trial data. Several hypotheses may be made regarding less harmful ways of using HES in critically ill patients, but clinicians, guideline committee members and authorities need to acknowledge that such safer ways have not yet been identified. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 22% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 October 2014.
All research outputs
#13,397,133
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#813
of 1,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,385
of 199,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 199,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.