| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 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 | 211 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 8% |
| Researcher | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 43 | 20% |
| Unknown | 50 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 75 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 13 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 10% |
| Unknown | 65 | 30% |
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 12 January 2014.
All research outputs
#18,465,704
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#914
of 1,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,203
of 306,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 306,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.