↓ Skip to main content

Functional outcomes in ICU – what should we be using? - an observational study

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
309 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
Functional outcomes in ICU – what should we be using? - an observational study
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0829-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Selina M Parry, Linda Denehy, Lisa J Beach, Sue Berney, Hannah C Williamson, Catherine L Granger

Abstract

With growing awareness of the importance of rehabilitation new measures are being developed specifically for use in the intensive care unit (ICU). There are currently 26 measures reported to assess function in ICU survivors. The Physical Function in Intensive care Test scored (PFIT-s) has established clinimetric properties. It is unknown how other functional measures perform in comparison to the PFIT-s or which functional measure may be the most clinically applicable for use within the ICU. The aims of this study were to determine (1) the criterion validity of the Functional Status Score for the ICU (FSS-ICU), ICU Mobility Scale (IMS) and Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) against the PFIT-s; (2) the construct validity of these tests against muscle strength; (3) the predictive utility of these tests to predict discharge to home; and (4) the clinical applicability of these tests. This was a nested study within an ongoing controlled study and an observational study. Sixty-six individuals were assessed at awakening and ICU discharge. Measures included: PFIT-s, FSS-ICU, IMS and SPPB. Bivariate relationships (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient) and predictive validity (logistic regression) were determined. Responsiveness (effect sizes); floor and ceiling effects; and minimal important differences were calculated. Mean ± SD PFIT-s at awakening was 4.7 ± 2.3 out of 10. On awakening a large positive relationship existed between PFIT-s and the other functional measures: FSS-ICU (rho = 0.87, p < 0.005), IMS (rho = 0.81, p < 0.005) and SPPB (rho = 0.70, p < 0.005). The PFIT-s had excellent construct validity (rho = 0.8, p < 0.005) and FSS-ICU (rho = 0.69, p < 0.005) and IMS (rho = 0.57, p < 0.005) had moderate construct validity with muscle strength. The PFIT-s and FSS-ICU had small floor/ceiling effects <11% at awakening and ICU discharge, whereas the IMS had a 17% floor effect on awakening. The SPPB had a large floor effect at awakening (78%) and ICU discharge (56%). All tests demonstrated responsiveness; however highest effect size was seen in the PFIT-s (Cohen's d = 0.71). There is high criterion validity for other functional measures against the PFIT-s. The PFIT-s and FSS-ICU are promising functional measures and are recommended to measure function within the ICU. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02214823 . Registered 7 August 2014).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 309 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 305 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 9%
Other 25 8%
Student > Bachelor 25 8%
Researcher 19 6%
Other 70 23%
Unknown 86 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 79 26%
Sports and Recreations 8 3%
Neuroscience 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 1%
Other 17 6%
Unknown 100 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 16 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,512,169
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,337
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,941
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#93
of 466 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 94th 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 done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 395,421 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.