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 |
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for preventing skeletal-muscle weakness and wasting in critically ill patients: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-11-137 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicola A Maffiuletti, Marc Roig, Eleftherios Karatzanos, Serafim Nanas |
| Abstract |
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) therapy may be useful in early musculoskeletal rehabilitation during acute critical illness. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of NMES for preventing skeletal-muscle weakness and wasting in critically ill patients, in comparison with usual care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 4 | 29% |
| Guatemala | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 21% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 444 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 435 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 76 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 70 | 16% |
| Researcher | 49 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 31 | 7% |
| Other | 76 | 17% |
| Unknown | 101 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 125 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 70 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 32 | 7% |
| Engineering | 20 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 4% |
| Other | 49 | 11% |
| Unknown | 131 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 29 July 2020.
All research outputs
#850,380
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#591
of 3,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,824
of 196,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#11
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.1. 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 196,895 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.