↓ Skip to main content

Safety and effectiveness of a Patient Blood Management (PBM) program in surgical patients - the study design for a multi-centre prospective epidemiologic non-inferiority trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Safety and effectiveness of a Patient Blood Management (PBM) program in surgical patients - the study design for a multi-centre prospective epidemiologic non-inferiority trial
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0576-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Meybohm, Dania Patricia Fischer, Christof Geisen, Markus Matthias Miller, Christian Friedrich Weber, Eva Herrmann, Bjirn Steffen, Erhard Seifried, Kai Zacharowski

Abstract

Preoperative and hospital-acquired anaemia is common among surgical patients. It is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality and a strong risk factor for allogeneic blood transfusions with their own inherent risks. Patient Blood Management (PBM) concepts aim to increase and preserve autologous erythrocyte volume and to optimise haemotherapy. They thus have great potential to benefit patients. This prospective, multi-centre clinical trial tests the hypothesis that PBM programs are safe and effective in the care of adult surgical patients. Primary outcome is a composite endpoint of adverse events and in-hospital mortality. This trial will determine whether the implementation of a PBM program is safe and effective in terms of clinical outcome compared to a pre-implementation cohort. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01820949).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 63%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Unspecified 2 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 April 2016.
All research outputs
#5,497,538
of 7,625,034 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,281
of 2,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,784
of 233,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#100
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,625,034 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 233,191 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.