↓ Skip to main content

Surviving Intensive Care: a report from the 2002 Brussels Roundtable

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
29 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
454 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
Title
Surviving Intensive Care: a report from the 2002 Brussels Roundtable
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, January 2003
DOI 10.1007/s00134-002-1624-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Derek C. Angus, Jean Carlet

Abstract

The traditional goal of intensive care has been to decrease short-term mortality. While worthy, this goal fails to address the issue of what it means to survive intensive care. Key questions include whether intensive care survivors have optimal long-term outcomes and whether ICU care decisions would change if we knew more about these outcomes. The 2002 Brussels Roundtable, "Surviving Intensive care", highlighted these issues, summarizing the available evidence on natural history and risk factors for critical illness and outlining future directions for care and research. Critical illness is associated with a wide array of serious and concerning long-term sequelae that interfere with optimal patient-centered outcomes. Although traditional short-term outcomes, such as hospital mortality, remain extremely important, they are not likely to be adequate surrogates for subsequent patient-centered outcomes. As such, it is important to focus specifically on how critical illness and intensive care affects a patient's and relatives' long-term health and well-being. There are a large number of potential pre-, intra-, and post-ICU factors that may improve or worsen these outcomes, and these factors are subjects for future research. In addition, future clinical trials of ICU therapies should include long-term follow-up of survival, quality of life, morbidity, functional status, and costs of care. Follow-up ought to be for at least six months. The SF-36 and EuroQOL EQ-5D are the best-suited instruments for measuring quality of life in multicenter critical care trials though further methodologic research and instrument design is encouraged. There are also opportunities today to improve care. Key to taking advantage of such opportunities is the need for a global awareness of critical illness as an entity that begins and ends outside the ICU 'box'. Specific interventions that show promise for improving care include ICU discharge screening tools and ICU follow-up clinics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 220 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 15%
Student > Master 34 15%
Other 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Other 54 24%
Unknown 47 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 10%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 59 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 21 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,087,566
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,658
of 5,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,478
of 141,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 69% 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 141,311 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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.