↓ Skip to main content

Hemodynamic effects of electrical muscle stimulation in the prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis for intensive care unit patients: a randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Hemodynamic effects of electrical muscle stimulation in the prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis for intensive care unit patients: a randomized trial
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40560-016-0206-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masahiro Ojima, Ryosuke Takegawa, Tomoya Hirose, Mitsuo Ohnishi, Tadahiko Shiozaki, Takeshi Shimazu

Abstract

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a major complication in critical care. There are various methods of prophylaxis, but none of them fully prevent DVT, and each method has adverse effects. Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) could be a new effective approach to prevent DVT in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We hypothesized that EMS increases the venous flow of the lower limbs and has a prophylactic effect against the formation of DVT. This study included 26 patients admitted to a single ICU. We enrolled patients who could not move themselves due to spinal cord injury, head injury, central nervous system abnormalities, and sedation for mechanical ventilation. The patients were randomly allocated to either the EMS group or the control group. Patients in the EMS group received 30-min sessions of EMS applied to the bilateral lower extremities on arbitrary days within 14 days after admission. The control patients received no EMS. The peak flow velocity and diameter of the popliteal vein (Pop.V) and common femoral vein (CFV) were measured by ultrasound and then the volumes of venous flow were calculated using a formula. There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups except for the mortality rate. In the EMS group, the median and interquartile range (IQR, 25th-75th percentile) of velocities of the Pop.V and CFV were higher during EMS compared with at rest: 10.6 (8.0-14.8) vs 24.5 (15.1-37.8) cm/s and 17.0 (12.3-23.8) vs 24.3 (17.0-33.0) cm/s, respectively (p < 0.05). The median (IQR) of volumes of venous flow of the Pop.V and CFV at rest and during EMS were 4.2 (2.7-7.2) vs 8.6 (5.4-16.1) cm(3)/s and 12.9 (9.7-21.4) vs 20.8 (12.3-34.1) cm(3)/s, respectively (p < 0.05). There were no major complications related to EMS. EMS increased the venous flow of the lower limbs. EMS could be one potential method for venous thromboprophylaxis. UMIN000013642.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 12%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 34 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Engineering 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 37 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 28 August 2019.
All research outputs
#6,179,108
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#248
of 516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,441
of 421,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#9
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
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 52% 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 421,299 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 60% of its contemporaries.