↓ Skip to main content

Electrical muscle stimulation prevents critical illness polyneuromyopathy: a randomized parallel intervention trial

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
247 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
394 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
Electrical muscle stimulation prevents critical illness polyneuromyopathy: a randomized parallel intervention trial
Published in
Critical Care, April 2010
DOI 10.1186/cc8987
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina Routsi, Vasiliki Gerovasili, Ioannis Vasileiadis, Eleftherios Karatzanos, Theodore Pitsolis, Elli Tripodaki, Vasiliki Markaki, Dimitrios Zervakis, Serafim Nanas

Abstract

Critical illness polyneuromyopathy (CIPNM) is a common complication of critical illness presenting with muscle weakness and is associated with increased duration of mechanical ventilation and weaning period. No preventive tool and no specific treatment have been proposed so far for CIPNM. Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) has been shown to be beneficial in patients with severe chronic heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Aim of our study was to assess the efficacy of EMS in preventing CIPNM in critically ill patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 394 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 7 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 378 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 16%
Student > Bachelor 52 13%
Student > Postgraduate 40 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 9%
Researcher 33 8%
Other 80 20%
Unknown 89 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 172 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 4%
Sports and Recreations 10 3%
Engineering 9 2%
Other 35 9%
Unknown 107 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,930,204
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,868
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,911
of 104,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#20
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 104,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.