↓ Skip to main content

Current rehabilitation practices in intensive care units: a preliminary survey by the Japanese Society of Education for Physicians and Trainees in Intensive Care (JSEPTIC) Clinical Trial Group

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Current rehabilitation practices in intensive care units: a preliminary survey by the Japanese Society of Education for Physicians and Trainees in Intensive Care (JSEPTIC) Clinical Trial Group
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40560-016-0190-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shunsuke Taito, Masamitsu Sanui, Hideto Yasuda, Nobuaki Shime, Alan Kawarai Lefor

Abstract

We conducted an internet survey targeting healthcare providers in intensive care units (ICUs) in Japan and received 318 responses. Eighteen percent of respondents replied that full-time physical therapists (PTs) exist in their ICUs. Practicing sitting upright or sitting in a chair is frequently performed, while standing and walking are occasionally performed for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. However, only 16 % of respondents use staged rehabilitation protocols. This preliminary survey suggests that full-time involvement of PTs in the ICU and introduction of rehabilitation protocols may not be common in Japanese ICUs.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Unspecified 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 14 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Unspecified 4 8%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 32%

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 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,995,594
of 15,919,321 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#122
of 372 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,639
of 295,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#22
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,919,321 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 372 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 295,413 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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 66% of its contemporaries.