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 |
Full predicted energy from nutrition and the effect on mortality and infectious complications in critically ill adults: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of parallel randomised controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0165-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma J. Ridley, Andrew R. Davies, Carol Hodgson, Adam Deane, Michael Bailey, D. James Cooper |
| Abstract |
Whilst nutrition is vital to survival in health, the precise role of nutrition during critical illness is controversial. More specifically, the exact amount of energy that is required during critical illness to optimally influence clinical outcomes remains unknown. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical effects of optimising nutrition to critically ill adult patients, such that the entire predicted amount of energy that the patient requires is delivered, on mortality and other important outcomes. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis will be conducted by searching for studies indexed in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Library. Searches will be restricted to English. Studies will be considered for inclusion if they are a parallel randomised controlled trial investigating a nutrition intervention in an adult critical care population, where one arm delivers 'full predicted energy from nutrition' (defined as provision of ≥80 % of the predicted energy required) and the other arm delivers energy less than 80 % of the predicted requirement. Two authors will independently perform title screening, full-text screening, data extraction and quality assessment for this review. The quality of individual studies will be assessed using the 'Risk of Bias' tool, and to assess the overall body of evidence, a 'Summary of Findings' table and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system will be used, all recommended by the Cochrane Library. Pending the study heterogeneity that is determined, a fixed-effect meta-analysis with pre-defined subgroup analyses will be performed. Currently, it is controversial whether optimal energy delivery is beneficial for outcomes in critically ill patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate whether delivering optimal energy to critically ill adult patients improves outcomes when compared to delivery of lesser amounts. PROSPERO CRD42015027512. |
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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
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 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,338,537
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,915
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#296,086
of 353,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#45
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 353,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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.