↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Critical illness polyneuropathy and myopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
241 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
432 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
Clinical review: Critical illness polyneuropathy and myopathy
Published in
Critical Care, November 2008
DOI 10.1186/cc7100
Pubmed ID
Authors

Greet Hermans, Bernard De Jonghe, Frans Bruyninckx, Greet Van den Berghe

Abstract

Critical illness polyneuropathy (CIP) and myopathy (CIM) are major complications of severe critical illness and its management. CIP/CIM prolongs weaning from mechanical ventilation and physical rehabilitation since both limb and respiratory muscles can be affected. Among many risk factors implicated, sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and multiple organ failure appear to play a crucial role in CIP/CIM. This review focuses on epidemiology, diagnostic challenges, the current understanding of pathophysiology, risk factors, important clinical consequences, and potential interventions to reduce the incidence of CIP/CIM. CIP/CIM is associated with increased hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays and increased mortality rates. Recently, it was shown in a single centre that intensive insulin therapy significantly reduced the electrophysiological incidence of CIP/CIM and the need for prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients in a medical or surgical ICU for at least 1 week. The electrophysiological diagnosis was limited by the fact that muscle membrane inexcitability was not detected. These results have yet to be confirmed in a larger patient population. One of the main risks of this therapy is hypoglycemia. Also, conflicting evidence concerning the neuromuscular effects of corticosteroids exists. A systematic review of the available literature on the optimal approach for preventing CIP/CIM seems warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 432 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 415 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 60 14%
Student > Master 57 13%
Researcher 53 12%
Student > Bachelor 47 11%
Other 45 10%
Other 105 24%
Unknown 65 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 271 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 10%
Neuroscience 12 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Social Sciences 4 <1%
Other 22 5%
Unknown 71 16%
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 24 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,876,021
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,846
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,374
of 178,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#11
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 178,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 59% of its contemporaries.