| Title |
The prevalence and characteristics of patients with classic locked-in syndrome in Dutch nursing homes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-012-6821-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. F. Kohnen, J. C. M. Lavrijsen, J. H. J. Bor, R. T. C. M. Koopmans |
| Abstract |
To establish the point prevalence and characteristics of patients with locked-in syndrome (LIS), particularly of the classic type, residing in Dutch nursing homes, a cross-sectional survey of Dutch nursing homes was conducted. The classic form of LIS was defined according to the criteria of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (1995). All Dutch long-term care organisations (n = 187) were asked if they had any patients with classic LIS as of December 5, 2011. The treating Elderly Care Physicians were then contacted to provide patient characteristics. Of all organisations, 91.4% responded, and 11 organisations reported a total of 12 patients. After analysing the questionnaires, it was determined that ten patients had LIS, and two patients were characterised with vegetative state. Only two patients met the criteria for classic LIS, while six patients showed partial LIS. One of these patients was admitted to the nursing home after December 5, 2011, and was therefore, excluded. LIS without accompanying pontine lesion was observed in the remaining two patients. For the first time, the prevalence of classic LIS has been established at 0.7/10,000 somatic nursing home beds in all Dutch long-term care organisations. Possible explanations for this low prevalence could be the Dutch provision of home care or the influence of end-of-life decisions, such as euthanasia and withholding or withdrawing all medical treatment, including artificial nutrition and hydration. These alternate outcomes should be explored in further studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 27% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 June 2013.
All research outputs
#14,754,186
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#3,087
of 4,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,420
of 282,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#27
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 282,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.