↓ Skip to main content

How do we know when patients sleep properly or why they do not?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
How do we know when patients sleep properly or why they do not?
Published in
Critical Care, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12614
Pubmed ID
Abstract

The importance of adequate sleep for good health and immune system function is well documented as is reduced sleep quality experienced by ICU patients. In the previous issue of Critical Care, Elliot and co-workers present a well done, largest of its kind, single-center study on sleep patterns in critically ill patients. They base their study on the 'gold standard', the polysomnography technique, which is resource demanding to perform and often difficult to evaluate. The results are especially interesting as the authors not only used polysomnography in a large sample but also, in contrast to others, excluded patients with prior sleep problems. They also recorded patients' subjective sleep experiences in the ICU and thereafter in the ward (validated questionnaires) with simultaneous data collection of factors known to affect sleep in the ICU (mainly treatment interventions, light and sound disturbances). Interestingly, but not surprisingly, sleep was both quantitatively and qualitatively poor. Furthermore, there seemed to be little or no improvement over time when compared to earlier studies. This study stresses the magnitude of the sleep problem despite interventions such as earplugs and/or eyeshades. Sound disturbance was found to be the most significant but improvable factor. The study highlights the challenge and the importance of evaluating sleep in the critical care setting and the present need for alternative methods to measure it. All that in conjunction can be used to solve an important problem for this patient group.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 17%
Computer Science 2 7%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 2013.
All research outputs
#6,457,160
of 21,346,872 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,557
of 5,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,437
of 174,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#42
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,346,872 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. 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 174,635 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 123 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.