| Title |
Predicting and managing sepsis in burn patients: current perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s119938 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Omar Nunez Lopez, Janos Cambiaso-Daniel, Ludwik K Branski, William B Norbury, David N Herndon |
| Abstract |
Modern burn care has led to unprecedented survival rates in burn patients whose injuries were fatal a few decades ago. Along with improved survival, new challenges have emerged in the management of burn patients. Infections top the list of the most common complication after burns, and sepsis is the leading cause of death in both adult and pediatric burn patients. The diagnosis and management of sepsis in burns is complex as a tremendous hypermetabolic response secondary to burn injury can be superimposed on systemic infection, leading to organ dysfunction. The management of a septic burn patient represents a challenging scenario that is commonly encountered by providers caring for burn patients despite preventive efforts. Here, we discuss the current perspectives in the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis and septic shock in burn patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 186 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 12% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 10% |
| Researcher | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 33 | 18% |
| Unknown | 69 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 70 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Unknown | 76 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 03 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,543,902
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#114
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,503
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#4
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. 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 327,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.