↓ Skip to main content

Paradigm shifts in critical care medicine: the progress we have made

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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
89 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Paradigm shifts in critical care medicine: the progress we have made
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/cc14728
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-Louis Vincent, Jacques Creteur

Abstract

There have really been no single, major, advances in critical care medicine since the specialty came into existence. There has, however, been a gradual, continuous improvement in the process of care over the years, which has resulted in improved patient outcomes. Here, we will highlight just a few of the paradigm shifts we have seen in processes of critical care, including the move from small, closed units to larger, more open ICUs; from a paternal "dictatorship" to more "democratic" team-work; from intermittent to continuous, invasive to less-invasive monitoring; from "more" interventions to "less" thus reducing iatrogenicity; from consideration of critical illness as a single event to realization that it is just one part of a trajectory; and from "four walls" to "no walls" as we take intensive care outside the physical ICU. These and other paradigm shifts have resulted in improvements in the whole approach to patient management, leading to more holistic, humane care for patients and their families. As critical care medicine continues to develop, further paradigm shifts in processes of care are inevitable and must be embraced if we are to continue to provide the best possible care for all critically ill patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Other 7 12%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 16 27%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Engineering 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 16 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 23 September 2016.
All research outputs
#365,085
of 19,368,131 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#248
of 5,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,523
of 275,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,368,131 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 275,356 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 97% of its contemporaries.