↓ Skip to main content

Towards computerizing intensive care sedation guidelines: design of a rule-based architecture for automated execution of clinical guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Towards computerizing intensive care sedation guidelines: design of a rule-based architecture for automated execution of clinical guidelines
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-10-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Femke Ongenae, Femke De Backere, Kristof Steurbaut, Kirsten Colpaert, Wannes Kerckhove, Johan Decruyenaere, Filip De Turck

Abstract

Computerized ICUs rely on software services to convey the medical condition of their patients as well as assisting the staff in taking treatment decisions. Such services are useful for following clinical guidelines quickly and accurately. However, the development of services is often time-consuming and error-prone. Consequently, many care-related activities are still conducted based on manually constructed guidelines. These are often ambiguous, which leads to unnecessary variations in treatments and costs.The goal of this paper is to present a semi-automatic verification and translation framework capable of turning manually constructed diagrams into ready-to-use programs. This framework combines the strengths of the manual and service-oriented approaches while decreasing their disadvantages. The aim is to close the gap in communication between the IT and the medical domain. This leads to a less time-consuming and error-prone development phase and a shorter clinical evaluation phase.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 93 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 20%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 9 9%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 9 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 41 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 20%
Engineering 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 13 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 August 2013.
All research outputs
#13,861,788
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,065
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,894
of 163,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 163,794 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.