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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
[ARTIGO RETRATADO] Estimulação elétrica neuromuscular em pacientes graves em unidade de terapia intensiva: revisão sistemática
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Einstein (São Paulo), September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s1679-45082014rw2955 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucas Lima Ferreira, Luiz Carlos Marques Vanderlei, Vitor Engrácia Valenti |
| Abstract |
Objective To analyze the outcomes enabled by the neuromuscular electric stimulation in critically ill patients in intensive care unit assisted. Methods A systematic review of the literature by means of clinical trials published between 2002 and 2012 in the databases LILACS, SciELO, MEDLINE and PEDro using the descriptors "intensive care unit", "physical therapy", "physiotherapy", "electric stimulation" and "randomized controlled trials". Results We included four trials. The sample size varied between 8 to 33 individuals of both genders, with ages ranging between 52 and 79 years, undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. Of the articles analyzed, three showed significant benefits of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in critically ill patients, such as improvement in peripheral muscle strength, exercise capacity, functionality, or loss of thickness of the muscle layer. Conclusion The application of neuromuscular electrical stimulation promotes a beneficial response in critically patients in intensive care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 43% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Researcher | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 22% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 October 2014.
All research outputs
#15,306,972
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from Einstein (São Paulo)
#237
of 492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,068
of 237,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Einstein (São Paulo)
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 492 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. 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 237,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 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.