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 |
Clinical prognostic indicators of dysphagia following prolonged orotracheal intubation in ICU patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc13069 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
DaniellePedroni Moraes, FernandaChiarion Sassi, LauraDavison Mangilli, Bruno Zilberstein, ClaudiaReginaFurquim de Andrade |
| Abstract |
The development of postextubation swallowing dysfunction is well documented in the literature with high prevalence in most studies. However, there are relatively few studies with specific outcomes that focus on the follow-up of these patients until hospital discharge. The purpose of our study was to determine prognostic indicators of dysphagia in ICU patients submitted to prolonged orotracheal intubation (OTI). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 151 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 10% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 30 | 19% |
| Unknown | 46 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 4% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 50 | 32% |
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 12 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,713,861
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,133
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,365
of 224,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#47
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 224,557 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 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 56% of its contemporaries.