You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Expert consensus and recommendations on safety criteria for active mobilization of mechanically ventilated critically ill adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0658-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carol L Hodgson, Kathy Stiller, Dale M Needham, Claire J Tipping, Megan Harrold, Claire E Baldwin, Scott Bradley, Sue Berney, Lawrence R Caruana, Doug Elliott, Margot Green, Kimberley Haines, Alisa M Higgins, Kirsi-Maija Kaukonen, Isabel Anne Leditschke, Marc R Nickels, Jennifer Paratz, Shane Patman, Elizabeth H Skinner, Paul J Young, Jennifer M Zanni, Linda Denehy, Steven A Webb |
| Abstract |
IntroductionTo develop consensus recommendations on safety parameters for mobilizing adult, mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit (ICU) patients.MethodsA systematic literature review followed by a meeting of 23 multidisciplinary ICU experts to seek consensus regarding the safe mobilization of mechanically ventilated patients.ResultsSafety considerations were summarized in four categories: respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological and other. Consensus was achieved on all criteria for safe mobilization, with the exception being levels of vasoactive agents. Intubation via an endotracheal tube was not a contraindication to early mobilization and a fraction of inspired oxygen less than 0.6 with a percutaneous oxygen saturation more than 90% and a respiratory rate less than 30 breaths/minute were considered safe criteria for in- and out-of-bed mobilization if there were no other contraindications. At an international meeting, 94 multidisciplinary ICU clinicians concurred with the proposed recommendations.ConclusionConsensus recommendations regarding safety criteria for mobilization of adult, mechanically ventilated patients in ICU have the potential to guide ICU rehabilitation whilst minimizing the risk of adverse events. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 228 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 | 48 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 41 | 18% |
| Australia | 12 | 5% |
| Spain | 6 | 3% |
| Brazil | 5 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 5 | 2% |
| Canada | 4 | 2% |
| Italy | 4 | 2% |
| Thailand | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 30 | 13% |
| Unknown | 70 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 127 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 52 | 23% |
| Scientists | 41 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 3% |
| Unknown | 2 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 773 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 5 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 763 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 104 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 103 | 13% |
| Other | 68 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 61 | 8% |
| Researcher | 59 | 8% |
| Other | 164 | 21% |
| Unknown | 214 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 215 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 214 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 12 | 2% |
| Other | 60 | 8% |
| Unknown | 238 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 155. 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 16 September 2023.
All research outputs
#268,203
of 25,709,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#125
of 6,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,892
of 369,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,709,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 369,955 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 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 99% of its contemporaries.