↓ Skip to main content

Critical illness-associated diaphragm weakness

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
235 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
434 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
Critical illness-associated diaphragm weakness
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00134-017-4928-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Dres, Ewan C. Goligher, Leo M. A. Heunks, Laurent J. Brochard

Abstract

Diaphragm weakness is highly prevalent in critically ill patients. It may exist prior to ICU admission and may precipitate the need for mechanical ventilation but it also frequently develops during the ICU stay. Several risk factors for diaphragm weakness have been identified; among them sepsis and mechanical ventilation play central roles. We employ the term critical illness-associated diaphragm weakness to refer to the collective effects of all mechanisms of diaphragm injury and weakness occurring in critically ill patients. Critical illness-associated diaphragm weakness is consistently associated with poor outcomes including increased ICU mortality, difficult weaning, and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation. Bedside techniques for assessing the respiratory muscles promise to improve detection of diaphragm weakness and enable preventive or curative strategies. Inspiratory muscle training and pharmacological interventions may improve respiratory muscle function but data on clinical outcomes remain limited.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 143 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 434 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 434 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 12%
Researcher 41 9%
Other 40 9%
Student > Postgraduate 38 9%
Student > Bachelor 38 9%
Other 97 22%
Unknown 129 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 186 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Engineering 6 1%
Neuroscience 4 <1%
Other 23 5%
Unknown 152 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 88. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#489,436
of 25,626,416 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#436
of 5,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,233
of 324,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#6
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,626,416 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 5,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 324,110 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 76 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 93% of its contemporaries.