↓ Skip to main content

Association of body temperature and antipyretic treatments with mortality of critically ill patients with and without sepsis: multi-centered prospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2012
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
Title
Association of body temperature and antipyretic treatments with mortality of critically ill patients with and without sepsis: multi-centered prospective observational study
Published in
Critical Care, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11211
Pubmed ID
Authors

Byung Ho Lee, Daisuke Inui, Gee Young Suh, Jae Yeol Kim, Jae Young Kwon, Jisook Park, Keiichi Tada, Keiji Tanaka, Kenichi Ietsugu, Kenji Uehara, Kentaro Dote, Kimitaka Tajimi, Kiyoshi Morita, Koichi Matsuo, Koji Hoshino, Koji Hosokawa, Kook Hyun Lee, Kyoung Min Lee, Makoto Takatori, Masaji Nishimura, Masamitsu Sanui, Masanori Ito, Moritoki Egi, Naofumi Honda, Naoko Okayama, Nobuaki Shime, Ryosuke Tsuruta, Satoshi Nogami, Seok-Hwa Yoon, Shigeki Fujitani, Shin Ok Koh, Shinhiro Takeda, Shinsuke Saito, Sung Jin Hong, Takeshi Yamamoto, Takeshi Yokoyama, Takuhiro Yamaguchi, Tomoki Nishiyama, Toshiko Igarashi, Yasuyuki Kakihana, Younsuck Koh, Byung Lee, Gee Suh, Jae Kim, Jae Kwon, Kook Lee, Kyoung Lee, Shin Koh, Sung Hong

Abstract

Fever is frequently observed in critically ill patients. An independent association of fever with increased mortality has been observed in non-neurological critically ill patients with mixed febrile etiology. The association of fever and antipyretics with mortality, however, may be different between infective and non-infective illness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 4 2%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 203 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 15%
Other 31 14%
Student > Postgraduate 27 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 9%
Other 65 30%
Unknown 19 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 159 73%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 9 4%
Unknown 21 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 09 October 2018.
All research outputs
#579,480
of 15,062,358 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#504
of 4,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,728
of 123,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#2
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,062,358 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 123,381 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 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 98% of its contemporaries.