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 |
Psychometric comparison of three behavioural scales for the assessment of pain in critically ill patients unable to self-report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc14000 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gerald Chanques, Anne Pohlman, John P Kress, Nicolas Molinari, Audrey de Jong, Samir Jaber, Jesse B Hall |
| Abstract |
Pain assessment is associated with important outcomes in ICU patients but remains challenging, particularly in non-communicative patients. Use of a reliable tool is paramount to allow any implementation of sedation/analgesia protocols in a multidisciplinary team. This study compared psychometric properties (inter-rater agreement primarily; validity, responsiveness and feasibility secondarily) of three pain scales: Behavioural Pain Scale (BPS/BPS-NI, that is BPS for Non-Intubated patients), Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS), the pain tool routinely used in this 16-bed medical ICU. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 4 | 40% |
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| Portugal | 1 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| Greece | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 187 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 37 | 19% |
| Researcher | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 35 | 18% |
| Unknown | 52 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 47 | 25% |
| Psychology | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Unknown | 57 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 24 August 2014.
All research outputs
#2,231,719
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,955
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,869
of 240,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#19
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 240,156 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.