↓ Skip to main content

The safety of a novel early mobilization protocol conducted by ICU physicians: a prospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
57 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
Title
The safety of a novel early mobilization protocol conducted by ICU physicians: a prospective observational study
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40560-018-0281-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keibun Liu, Takayuki Ogura, Kunihiko Takahashi, Mitsunobu Nakamura, Hiroaki Ohtake, Kenji Fujiduka, Emi Abe, Hitoshi Oosaki, Dai Miyazaki, Hiroyuki Suzuki, Mitsuaki Nishikimi, Alan Kawarai Lefor, Takashi Mato

Abstract

There are numerous barriers to early mobilization (EM) in a resource-limited intensive care unit (ICU) without a specialized team or an EM culture, regarding patient stability while critically ill or in the presence of medical devices. We hypothesized that ICU physicians can overcome these barriers. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety of EM according to the Maebashi EM protocol conducted by ICU physicians. This was a single-center prospective observational study. All consecutive patients with an unplanned emergency admission were included in this study, according to the exclusion criteria. The observation period was from June 2015 to June 2016. Data regarding adverse events, medical devices in place during rehabilitation, protocol adherence, and rehabilitation outcomes were collected. The primary outcome was safety. A total of 232 consecutively enrolled patients underwent 587 rehabilitation sessions. Thirteen adverse events occurred (2.2%; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.8%) and no specific treatment was needed. There were no instances of dislodgement or obstruction of medical devices, tubes, or lines. The incidence of adverse events associated with mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was 2.4 and 3.6%, respectively. Of 587 sessions, 387 (66%) sessions were performed at the active rehabilitation level, including sitting out of the bed, active transfer to a chair, standing, marching, and ambulating. ICU physicians attended over 95% of these active rehabilitation sessions. Of all patients, 143 (62%) got out of bed within 2 days (median 1.2 days; interquartile range 0.1-2.0). EM according to the Maebashi EM protocol conducted by ICU physicians, without a specialized team or EM culture, was performed at a level of safety similar to previous studies performed by specialized teams, even with medical devices in place, including mechanical ventilation or ECMO. Protocolized EM led by ICU physicians can be initiated in the acute phase of critical illness without serious adverse events requiring additional treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Other 17 12%
Student > Master 14 10%
Researcher 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 48 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 54 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 08 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,223,366
of 25,257,066 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#54
of 574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,866
of 337,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,257,066 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 337,250 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 92% 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 well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.