↓ Skip to main content

ICU-acquired weakness: what is preventing its rehabilitation in critically ill patients?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
ICU-acquired weakness: what is preventing its rehabilitation in critically ill patients?
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-10-115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christie M Lee, Eddy Fan

Abstract

Intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW) has been recognized as an important and persistent complication in survivors of critical illness. The absence of a consistent nomenclature and diagnostic criteria for ICUAW has made research in this area challenging. Although many risk factors have been identified, the data supporting their direct association have been controversial. Presently, there is a growing body of literature supporting the utility and benefit of early mobility in reducing the morbidity from ICUAW, but few centers have adopted this into their ICU procedures. Ultimately, the implementation of such a strategy would require a shift in the knowledge and culture within the ICU, and may be facilitated by novel technology and patient care strategies. The purpose of this article is to briefly review the diagnosis, risk factors, and management of ICUAW, and to discuss some of the barriers and novel treatments to improve outcomes for our ICU survivors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 2 1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 136 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 25%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Other 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 38 27%
Unknown 7 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Psychology 3 2%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 13 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,555,432
of 13,884,653 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,387
of 2,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,299
of 131,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,884,653 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,178 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.3. 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 131,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them