You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Impact of nutritional support that does and does not meet guideline standards on clinical outcome in surgical patients at nutritional risk: a prospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12937-016-0193-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Da-Li Sun, Wei-Ming Li, Shu-Min Li, Yun-Yun Cen, Yue-ying Lin, Qing-Wen Xu, Yi-Jun Li, Yan-Bo Sun, Yu-xing Qi, Ting Yang, Qi-Ping Lu, Peng-Yuan Xu |
| Abstract |
To investigate the impact of nutritional support on clinical outcomes in patients at nutritional risk who receive nutritional support that meets guideline standards and those who do not. This prospective cohort study enrolled hospitalized patients from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University from February 2010 to June 2012. The research protocols were approved by the university's ethics committee, and the patients signed informed consent forms. The clinical data were collected based on nutritional risk screening, administration of enteral and parenteral nutrition, surgical information, complications, and length of hospital stay. During the study period, 525 patients at nutritional risk were enrolled in the cohorts. Among patients who received nutritional support that met the guideline standards (Cohort 1), the incidence of infectious complications was lower than that in patients who did not meet guideline standards (Cohort 2) (17.1 % vs. 26.9 %, P = 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed that individuals who received a combination of parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) for 7 or more days had a significantly lower incidence of infectious complications (P = 0.001) than those who received only PN for 7 or more days or those who received nutritional support for less than 7 days or at less than 10 kcal/kg/d. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that, after adjusting for confounding factors, nutritional support that met guideline standards for patients with nutritional risk was a protective factor for complications (OR: 0.870, P < 0.002). In patients at nutritional risk after abdominal surgery, nutritional support that meets recommended nutrient guidelines (especially regimens involving PN + EN ≥ 7 days) might decrease the incidence of infectious complications and is worth recommending; however, well-designed trials are needed to confirm our findings. Nutritional support that does not meet the guideline standards is considered clinically undesirable. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 20% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Design | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 37% |
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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,381,416
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,162
of 1,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,141
of 343,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 343,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.