↓ Skip to main content

Acute microcirculatory effects of medium frequency versus high frequency neuromuscular electrical stimulation in critically ill patients - a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
Title
Acute microcirculatory effects of medium frequency versus high frequency neuromuscular electrical stimulation in critically ill patients - a pilot study
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-3-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Epameinondas Angelopoulos, Eleftherios Karatzanos, Stavros Dimopoulos, Georgios Mitsiou, Christos Stefanou, Irini Patsaki, Anastasia Kotanidou, Christina Routsi, George Petrikkos, Serafeim Nanas

Abstract

Intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW) is a common complication, associated with significant morbidity. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has shown promise for prevention. NMES acutely affects skeletal muscle microcirculation; such effects could mediate the favorable outcomes. However, optimal current characteristics have not been defined. This study aimed to compare the effects on muscle microcirculation of a single NMES session using medium and high frequency currents.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 164 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 22%
Student > Master 25 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Student > Postgraduate 14 8%
Professor 12 7%
Other 32 19%
Unknown 28 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 15%
Sports and Recreations 14 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 37 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 January 2014.
All research outputs
#2,973,522
of 4,506,407 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#137
of 181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,235
of 123,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,506,407 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 123,124 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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.