↓ Skip to main content

The pain, agitation, and delirium practice guidelines for adult critically ill patients: a post-publication perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, April 2013
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 (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The pain, agitation, and delirium practice guidelines for adult critically ill patients: a post-publication perspective
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-3-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoanna Skrobik, Gerald Chanques

Abstract

The recently published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit differ from earlier guidelines in the following ways: literature searches were performed in eight databases by a professional librarian; psychometric validation of assessment scales was considered in their recommendation; discrepancies in recommendation votes by guideline panel members are available in online supplements; and all recommendations were made exclusively on the basis of evidence available until December of 2010. Pain recognition and management remains challenging in the critically ill. Patient outcomes improve with routine pain assessment, use of co-analgesics and administration as well as dose adjustment of opiates to patient needs. Thoracic epidurals help ease patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery. Little data exists to guide clinicians as to the type or dose of co-analgesics; no opiate choice is associated with better patient outcomes. Lighter or no sedation is beneficial, and interruption is desirable in patients who require deep sedation for specific pathologic states. Delirium screening is probably useful; no treatment modality can be unequivocally recommended, and the benefit of prophylaxis is established only for early mobilization. The details of these recommendations, as well as more recent publications that complement the guidelines, are provided in this commentary.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Czechia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 117 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 7%
Other 9 7%
Other 32 26%
Unknown 28 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 27 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,693,562
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#363
of 1,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,148
of 212,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 212,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.