↓ Skip to main content

Early identification of patients at risk of long-term critical illness-associated physical disability: is it possible?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Early identification of patients at risk of long-term critical illness-associated physical disability: is it possible?
Published in
Critical Care, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0629-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evelyn J Corner, Stephen J Brett

Abstract

ICU-acquired weakness can hinder and determine the course of recovery from critical illness, leading to life-changing disability. Risk factors include multiorgan failure and prolonged bed rest; however, no prognostic model or screening tool for new-onset disability has been established to date. With no way of targeting the at-risk population, it is difficult to demonstrate the benefit of rehabilitation interventions in research and prioritize resources clinically. In a recent issue of Critical Care, Schandl and colleagues aimed to establish a predictive screening tool for new-onset disability using 23 possible predictors. They found that using the following risk factors - low educational level, fractures, reduced core stability and length of ICU stay over 2 days - they were able to develop a risk score predictive of disability at 2 months after hospital discharge. These investigators propose that this will help to identify patients requiring follow-up and may increase the power to detect change in interventional studies. Whilst this is promising work, further validation is essential: firstly, to make it a clinically workable tool in terms of appropriate 'cut offs'; secondly, to ensure that it is transferable in different socio-economic environments; and finally, to make sure that those identified as 'at risk' are those that would benefit the most from targeted intervention.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 22%
Researcher 5 22%
Professor 5 22%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unknown 3 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 November 2014.
All research outputs
#3,666,373
of 4,522,755 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,367
of 2,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,071
of 137,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#172
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,522,755 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 137,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.