| Title |
Recovery after critical illness: putting the puzzle together—a consensus of 29
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-017-1887-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elie Azoulay, Jean-Louis Vincent, Derek C. Angus, Yaseen M. Arabi, Laurent Brochard, Stephen J. Brett, Giuseppe Citerio, Deborah J. Cook, Jared Randall Curtis, Claudia C. dos Santos, E. Wesley Ely, Jesse Hall, Scott D. Halpern, Nicholas Hart, Ramona O. Hopkins, Theodore J. Iwashyna, Samir Jaber, Nicola Latronico, Sangeeta Mehta, Dale M. Needham, Judith Nelson, Kathleen Puntillo, Michael Quintel, Kathy Rowan, Gordon Rubenfeld, Greet Van den Berghe, Johannes Van der Hoeven, Hannah Wunsch, Margaret Herridge |
| Abstract |
In this review, we seek to highlight how critical illness and critical care affect longer-term outcomes, to underline the contribution of ICU delirium to cognitive dysfunction several months after ICU discharge, to give new insights into ICU acquired weakness, to emphasize the importance of value-based healthcare, and to delineate the elements of family-centered care. This consensus of 29 also provides a perspective and a research agenda about post-ICU recovery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 152 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 Kingdom | 32 | 21% |
| United States | 20 | 13% |
| Australia | 8 | 5% |
| Canada | 7 | 5% |
| Saudi Arabia | 4 | 3% |
| Spain | 4 | 3% |
| Chile | 3 | 2% |
| Brazil | 3 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 16% |
| Unknown | 43 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 74 | 49% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 35 | 23% |
| Scientists | 33 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 248 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 38 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 36 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 55 | 22% |
| Unknown | 60 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 17% |
| Psychology | 7 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Engineering | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 8% |
| Unknown | 75 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. 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 08 August 2022.
All research outputs
#434,742
of 25,529,543 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#252
of 6,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,735
of 446,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#7
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,529,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,580 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 446,793 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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.