| Title |
Validity and reliability of the Thai version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s62660 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tanyong Pipanmekaporn, Nahathai Wongpakaran, Sirirat Mueankwan, Piyawat Dendumrongkul, Kaweesak Chittawatanarat, Nantiya Khongpheng, Nongnut Duangsoy |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 19% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 May 2014.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,182
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,067
of 242,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#22
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 242,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.