↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for preventing critical illness polyneuropathy and critical illness myopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
599 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Interventions for preventing critical illness polyneuropathy and critical illness myopathy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006832.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Greet Hermans, Bernard De Jonghe, Frans Bruyninckx, Greet Van den Berghe

Abstract

Critical illness polyneuropathy or myopathy (CIP/CIM) is a frequent complication in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer ICU stay and increased mortality. This is an interim update of a review first published in 2009 (Hermans 2009). It has been updated to October 2011, with further potentially eligible studies from a December 2013 search characterised as awaiting assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 599 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 588 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 99 17%
Student > Bachelor 66 11%
Researcher 61 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 8%
Other 44 7%
Other 133 22%
Unknown 147 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 225 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 88 15%
Neuroscience 16 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 2%
Other 64 11%
Unknown 178 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 October 2019.
All research outputs
#7,420,721
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,912
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,293
of 325,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#176
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 325,038 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.