↓ Skip to main content

I Recomendação brasileira de fisioterapia respiratória em unidade de terapia intensiva pediátrica e neonatal

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
163 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
I Recomendação brasileira de fisioterapia respiratória em unidade de terapia intensiva pediátrica e neonatal
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, June 2012
DOI 10.1590/s0103-507x2012000200005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cíntia Johnston, Nathalia Mendonça Zanetti, Talitha Comaru, Simone Nascimento Dos Santos Ribeiro, Lívia Barboza de Andrade, Suzi Laine Longo Dos Santos

Abstract

Developing guidelines for the role of the physiotherapist in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units is essential because these professionals are responsible for the rehabilitation of critically ill patients. Rehabilitation includes the evaluation and prevention of functional kinetic alterations, application of treatment interventions (respiratory and/or motor physiotherapy), control and application of medical gases, care of mechanical ventilation, weaning and extubation, tracheal gas insufflation, inflation/deflation of the endotracheal cuff protocol, and surfactant application, aiming to allow patients to have a full recovery and return to their functional activities. In this article, we present guidelines that are intended to guide the physiotherapist in some of the prevention/treatment interventions in respiratory therapy (airway clearance, lung expansion, position in bed, airway suction, drug inhalation, and cough assist), which help in the rehabilitation process of newborns and children in intensive care units during mechanical ventilation and up to 12 hours following extubation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Papua New Guinea 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 56 34%
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Other 6 4%
Professor 6 4%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 45 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 46 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 9%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Sports and Recreations 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 52 32%
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 09 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,212,618
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#58
of 350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,788
of 179,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 350 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 179,215 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them