| Title |
The impact of patient positioning on pressure ulcers in patients with severe ARDS: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial on prone positioning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-013-3188-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raphaele Girard, Loredana Baboi, Louis Ayzac, Jean-Christophe Richard, Claude Guérin, for the Proseva trial group |
| Abstract |
Placing patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the prone position has been shown to improve survival as compared to the supine position. However, a higher frequency of pressure ulcers has been reported in patients in the prone position. The objective of this study was to verify the impact of prone positioning on pressure ulcers in patients with severe ARDS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 7 | 28% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 20% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 84% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 286 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 26 | 9% |
| Other | 23 | 8% |
| Researcher | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 65 | 22% |
| Unknown | 87 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 91 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 76 | 26% |
| Engineering | 5 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 1% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 18 | 6% |
| Unknown | 94 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 18 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,343,821
of 25,729,842 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,202
of 5,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,353
of 322,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,729,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 322,393 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 94% of its contemporaries.