| Title |
Neurological examination of critically ill patients: a pragmatic approach. Report of an ESICM expert panel
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-014-3214-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tarek Sharshar, Giuseppe Citerio, Peter J. D. Andrews, Arturo Chieregato, Nicola Latronico, David K. Menon, Louis Puybasset, Claudio Sandroni, Robert D. Stevens |
| Abstract |
Many patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) have pre-existing or acquired neurological disorders which significantly affect their short-term and long-term outcomes. The ESICM Neuro Intensive Care Section convened an expert panel to establish a pragmatic approach to neurological examination (NE) of the critically ill patient. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 4 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 21% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
| Scientists | 3 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 231 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 30 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 11% |
| Researcher | 23 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 63 | 26% |
| Unknown | 56 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 123 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 17 | 7% |
| Unknown | 53 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 June 2021.
All research outputs
#3,275,568
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#2,120
of 5,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,141
of 336,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#9
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 336,071 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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.