| 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 |
Fever and Antipyretic in Critically ill patients Evaluation (FACE) Study Group, 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 |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 | 2 | 8% |
| Canada | 2 | 8% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Russia | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 290 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 4 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Greece | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 277 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 42 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 35 | 12% |
| Other | 31 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 8% |
| Other | 83 | 29% |
| Unknown | 48 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 178 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 6% |
| Unknown | 51 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 19 January 2024.
All research outputs
#967,712
of 25,744,802 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#738
of 6,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,491
of 168,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#3
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,744,802 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 6,609 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 168,781 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 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 97% of its contemporaries.