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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Strategies to optimize respiratory muscle function in ICU patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1280-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Willem-Jan M. Schellekens, Hieronymus W. H. van Hees, Jonne Doorduin, Lisanne H. Roesthuis, Gert Jan Scheffer, Johannes G. van der Hoeven, Leo M. A. Heunks |
| Abstract |
Respiratory muscle dysfunction may develop rapidly in critically ill ventilated patients and is associated with increased morbidity, length of intensive care unit stay, costs, and mortality. This review briefly discusses the pathophysiology of respiratory muscle dysfunction in intensive care unit patients and then focuses on strategies that prevent the development of muscle weakness or, if weakness has developed, how respiratory muscle function may be improved. We propose a simple strategy for how these can be implemented in clinical care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 81 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 13 | 16% |
| United States | 9 | 11% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 5% |
| Colombia | 3 | 4% |
| Argentina | 3 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 3 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 2% |
| Mexico | 2 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 31 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 55 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 16% |
| Scientists | 12 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 206 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 14% |
| Researcher | 19 | 9% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 60 | 28% |
| Unknown | 37 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 106 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Unknown | 46 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 July 2022.
All research outputs
#841,869
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#635
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,827
of 313,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#12
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 313,417 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.