| Title |
Long-term psychological effects of a no-sedation protocol in critically ill patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc10586 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Strøm, Mette Stylsvig, Palle Toft |
| Abstract |
A protocol of no sedation has been shown to reduce the time patients receive mechanical ventilation and to reduce intensive care and total hospital length of stay. The long-term psychological effects of this strategy have not yet been described. The purpose of the study was to test whether a strategy of no sedation alters long-term psychological outcome compared with a standard strategy with sedation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 | 11 | 42% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 12% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Hungary | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 77% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 157 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 15% |
| Researcher | 22 | 13% |
| Other | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 40 | 24% |
| Unknown | 28 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 82 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 13% |
| Psychology | 5 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 9% |
| Unknown | 35 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 30 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,341,325
of 25,626,416 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,053
of 6,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,355
of 249,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#7
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,626,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,592 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 249,984 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 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 92% of its contemporaries.