↓ 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 2 1%
Russia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 132 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 24%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Other 13 9%
Other 43 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 18%
Unspecified 12 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 10 7%

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
#2,172,610
of 12,517,134 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,261
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,836
of 128,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#15
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,517,134 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 128,271 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 28 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 53% of its contemporaries.