↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Massive hemorrhage management – a best evidence topic report

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Massive hemorrhage management – a best evidence topic report
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s88878
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomas Vymazal

Abstract

Massive hemorrhage remains a major cause of potentially preventable deaths. Better control of bleeding could improve survival rates by 10%-20%. Transfusion intervention concepts have been formulated in order to minimize acute traumatic coagulopathy. These interventions still have not been standardized and vary among medical centers. Based on a literature search using free term keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) index, we analyzed published articles addressing massive hemorrhage, component therapy, fresh whole blood, and fibrinogen from the year 2000 onward, in journals with impact factor >1.000, in Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The evidence was grouped into topics including laboratory testing and transfusion interventions/viscoelastic assays vs standard laboratory tests, the effect of component therapy on patient outcome, the effect of warm fresh whole blood on patient outcome, and the effects of fibrinogen in severe bleeding. The obtained information was compared, evaluated, confronted, and was focused on to present an adequate and individual-based massive hemorrhage management approach. Viscoelastic whole-blood assays are superior to standard coagulation blood tests for the identification of coagulopathy and for guiding decisions on appropriate therapy in patients with severe bleeding. Replacement of plasma, red blood cells, platelets, and fibrinogen in a ratio of 1:1:1:1 has appeared to be the best substitution for lost whole blood. There is no evidence that cryoprecipitate improves the outcome of patients with severe hemorrhage. Current literature promotes the transfusion of warm fresh whole blood, which seems to be superior to the component therapy in certain clinical situations. Some authors recommend that fibrinogen and other coagulation factors be administered according to the viscoelastic attributes of the blood clot. This best-evidence topic report brings comprehensive information about massive hemorrhage management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 43 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 22%
Student > Master 7 16%
Other 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 67%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 4 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 August 2015.
All research outputs
#8,614,141
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#462
of 1,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,438
of 277,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#17
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 277,917 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.