↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for preventing critical illness polyneuropathy and critical illness myopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
589 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Interventions for preventing critical illness polyneuropathy and critical illness myopathy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006832.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Greet Hermans, Bernard De Jonghe, Frans Bruyninckx, Greet Van den Berghe

Abstract

Critical illness polyneuropathy or myopathy (CIP/CIM) is a frequent complication in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer ICU stay and increased mortality. This is an interim update of a review first published in 2009 (Hermans 2009). It has been updated to October 2011, with further potentially eligible studies from a December 2013 search characterised as awaiting assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 589 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 578 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 98 17%
Student > Bachelor 66 11%
Researcher 59 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 8%
Other 44 7%
Other 131 22%
Unknown 141 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 223 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 88 15%
Neuroscience 16 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 2%
Other 62 11%
Unknown 172 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 October 2019.
All research outputs
#6,616,644
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,313
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,319
of 323,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#165
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 323,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.