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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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, Japanese Society of Education for Physicians and Trainees in Intensive Care (JSEPTIC) Clinical Trial Group |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Japan | 2 | 17% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 19 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 21% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 22 | 42% |
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
#4,534,995
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#198
of 516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,468
of 313,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 313,742 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.