↓ Skip to main content

The confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) and intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of…

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2012
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 (95th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
415 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
471 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) and intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies
Published in
Critical Care, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11407
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitri Gusmao-Flores, Jorge Ibrain Figueira Salluh, Ricardo Ávila Chalhub, Lucas C Quarantini

Abstract

Delirium is a frequent form of acute brain dysfunction in critically ill patients, and several detection tools for it have been developed for use in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The objective of this study is to evaluate the current evidence on the accuracy of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium in critically ill patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 471 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 458 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 13%
Other 55 12%
Researcher 50 11%
Student > Bachelor 50 11%
Student > Postgraduate 46 10%
Other 108 23%
Unknown 99 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 212 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 70 15%
Neuroscience 14 3%
Psychology 9 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 2%
Other 40 8%
Unknown 117 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,929,867
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,727
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,426
of 177,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#6
of 123 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 92nd 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 177,745 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 123 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 95% of its contemporaries.