↓ Skip to main content

Cuidados multiprofissionais para pacientes em delirium em terapia intensiva: revisão integrativa

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
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.
Title
Cuidados multiprofissionais para pacientes em delirium em terapia intensiva: revisão integrativa
Published in
Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem, August 2018
DOI 10.1590/1983-1447.2018.2017-0157
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thieli Lemos de Souza, Karina de Oliveira Azzolin, Vivian Rodrigues Fernandes

Abstract

To describe the multiprofessional care for the management of critical patients in delirium in the ICU from the evidences found in the literature. This integrative review was carried out in the period from February 1 to June 30, 2016 through searches on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL, with the following descriptors: delirium, critical care e intensive care units, which brought up 17 original papers. A bundle and a guideline, two systematic reviews, evidence 1a and four clinical trials, evidence 1b and 2b, cohort and observational studies were found. The multiprofessional care was presented to better understand the diagnosis of delirium, sedation pause, early mobilization, pain, agitation and delirium guidelines, psychomotor agitation, cognitive orientation, sleep promotion, environment and family participation. The care for delirium is wide and not specific, which determines its multifactorial aspect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Researcher 2 3%
Student > Postgraduate 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 26 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Computer Science 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 27 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 November 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem
#87
of 236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,450
of 341,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 236 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 341,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.