↓ Skip to main content

Electrical muscle stimulation prevents critical illness polyneuromyopathy: a randomized parallel intervention trial

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
184 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
300 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
Electrical muscle stimulation prevents critical illness polyneuromyopathy: a randomized parallel intervention trial
Published in
Critical Care, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/cc8987
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina Routsi, Vasiliki Gerovasili, Ioannis Vasileiadis, Eleftherios Karatzanos, Theodore Pitsolis, Elli Sophia Tripodaki, Vasiliki Markaki, Dimitrios Zervakis, Serafim Nanas

Abstract

Critical illness polyneuromyopathy (CIPNM) is a common complication of critical illness presenting with muscle weakness and is associated with increased duration of mechanical ventilation and weaning period. No preventive tool and no specific treatment have been proposed so far for CIPNM. Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) has been shown to be beneficial in patients with severe chronic heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Aim of our study was to assess the efficacy of EMS in preventing CIPNM in critically ill patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 7 2%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 284 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 18%
Student > Bachelor 41 14%
Student > Postgraduate 37 12%
Researcher 30 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 10%
Other 72 24%
Unknown 36 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 158 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 5%
Sports and Recreations 9 3%
Neuroscience 8 3%
Other 28 9%
Unknown 50 17%

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 07 December 2018.
All research outputs
#7,872,220
of 13,994,718 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,210
of 4,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,181
of 121,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#43
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,994,718 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 121,682 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 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 55% of its contemporaries.