↓ Skip to main content

Effect of oral melatonin and wearing earplugs and eye masks on nocturnal sleep in healthy subjects in a simulated intensive care unit environment: which might be a more promising strategy for ICU…

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 5,522)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
95 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
4 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 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
Effect of oral melatonin and wearing earplugs and eye masks on nocturnal sleep in healthy subjects in a simulated intensive care unit environment: which might be a more promising strategy for ICU sleep deprivation?
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0842-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hua-Wei Huang, Bo-Lu Zheng, Li Jiang, Zong-Tong Lin, Guo-Bin Zhang, Ling Shen, Xiu-Ming Xi

Abstract

Sleep deprivation is common in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Noise and light in the ICU and the reduction in plasma melatonin play the essential roles. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of simulated ICU noise and light on nocturnal sleep quality, and compare the effectiveness of melatonin and earplugs and eye masks on sleep quality in these conditions in healthy subjects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 226 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 17%
Student > Master 32 14%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Postgraduate 20 9%
Other 19 8%
Other 47 20%
Unknown 50 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 21%
Psychology 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Neuroscience 8 3%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 54 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 197. 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 14 November 2020.
All research outputs
#118,697
of 18,834,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#46
of 5,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,985
of 272,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,834,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 272,447 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 99% of its contemporaries.