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 |
Do we need new prokinetics to reduce enteral feeding intolerance during critical illness?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, September 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. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 53% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
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
#15,740,207
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,131
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,810
of 329,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#106
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 329,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.