↓ Skip to main content

Do we need new prokinetics to reduce enteral feeding intolerance during critical illness?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
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.
Title
Do we need new prokinetics to reduce enteral feeding intolerance during critical illness?
Published in
Critical Care, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1466-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arthur Raymond Hubert van Zanten

Abstract

Gastrointestinal feeding intolerance and critical illness-associated gastric motility dysfunction are common. Although recent guidelines recommend not interrupting gastric feeding when gastric residual volume (GRV) is lower than 500 mL or to completely abandon measurement of GRV, it may seem that the relevance of prokinetics is reduced.In patients at risk for aspiration and in multimodal strategies to enhance feeding performance, however, use of prokinetics is still advocated. Metoclopramide and erythromycin are commonly used promotility agents, although with relevant side effects.Potential targets for new agents and early study results are addressed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Other 6 16%
Researcher 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 57%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 11%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 4 11%

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 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,065,471
of 12,519,038 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,924
of 4,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,110
of 264,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#102
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,519,038 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,020 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 264,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.