↓ Skip to main content

Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rehabilitation in Critically Ill Patients 2023 (J-ReCIP 2023)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, November 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 590)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
207 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rehabilitation in Critically Ill Patients 2023 (J-ReCIP 2023)
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, November 2023
DOI 10.1186/s40560-023-00697-w
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takeshi Unoki, Kei Hayashida, Yusuke Kawai, Shunsuke Taito, Morihide Ando, Yuki Iida, Fumihito Kasai, Tatsuya Kawasaki, Ryo Kozu, Yutaka Kondo, Masakazu Saitoh, Hideaki Sakuramoto, Nobuyuki Sasaki, Ryuichi Saura, Kensuke Nakamura, Akira Ouchi, Saiko Okamoto, Masatsugu Okamura, Tomoki Kuribara, Akira Kuriyama, Yujiro Matsuishi, Norimasa Yamamoto, Shodai Yoshihiro, Taisuke Yasaka, Ryo Abe, Takahito Iitsuka, Hiroyasu Inoue, Yuki Uchiyama, Satoshi Endo, Kazuki Okura, Kohei Ota, Takahisa Otsuka, Daisuke Okada, Kengo Obata, Yukiko Katayama, Naoki Kaneda, Mio Kitayama, Shunsuke Kina, Ryuichi Kusaba, Masanari Kuwabara, Naoki Sasanuma, Masahiro Takahashi, Chihiro Takayama, Naonori Tashiro, Junko Tatsuno, Takahiko Tamura, Mitsuhiro Tamoto, Asuka Tsuchiya, Yusuke Tsutsumi, Tadashi Nagato, Chihiro Narita, Tomohiro Nawa, Tadayoshi Nonoyama, Masatoshi Hanada, Kotaro Hirakawa, Akiko Makino, Hirotaka Masaki, Ryosuke Matsuki, Shinya Matsushima, Wataru Matsuda, Saori Miyagishima, Masaru Moromizato, Naoya Yanagi, Kota Yamauchi, Yuhei Yamashita, Natsuhiro Yamamoto, Keibun Liu, Yuki Wakabayashi, Shinichi Watanabe, Hiroshi Yonekura, Nobuto Nakanishi, Tetsuya Takahashi, Osamu Nishida

Abstract

Providing standardized, high-quality rehabilitation for critically ill patients is a crucial issue. In 2017, the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine (JSICM) promulgated the "Evidence-Based Expert Consensus for Early Rehabilitation in the Intensive Care Unit" to advocate for the early initiation of rehabilitations in Japanese intensive care settings. Building upon this seminal work, JSICM has recently conducted a rigorous systematic review utilizing the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. This endeavor resulted in the formulation of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs), designed to elucidate best practices in early ICU rehabilitation. The primary objective of this guideline is to augment clinical understanding and thereby facilitate evidence-based decision-making, ultimately contributing to the enhancement of patient outcomes in critical care settings. No previous CPGs in the world has focused specifically on rehabilitation of critically ill patients, using the GRADE approach. Multidisciplinary collaboration is extremely important in rehabilitation. Thus, the CPGs were developed by 73 members of a Guideline Development Group consisting of a working group, a systematic review group, and an academic guideline promotion group, with the Committee for the Clinical Practice Guidelines of Early Mobilization and Rehabilitation in Intensive Care of the JSICM at its core. Many members contributed to the development of the guideline, including physicians and healthcare professionals with multiple and diverse specialties, as well as a person who had been patients in ICU. Based on discussions among the group members, eight important clinical areas of focus for this CPG were identified. Fourteen important clinical questions (CQs) were then developed for each area. The public was invited to comment twice, and the answers to the CQs were presented in the form of 10 GRADE recommendations and commentary on the four background questions. In addition, information for each CQ has been created as a visual clinical flow to ensure that the positioning of each CQ can be easily understood. We hope that the CPGs will be a useful tool in the rehabilitation of critically ill patients for multiple professions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 207 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 15 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Unspecified 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 143. 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 05 May 2024.
All research outputs
#298,237
of 25,936,091 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#8
of 590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,172
of 368,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,936,091 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 368,516 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.