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 |
Two ghrelin receptor agonists for adults with malnutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12937-016-0214-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jianhua Su, Jin Geng, Jisheng Bao, Yin Tang, Menglan Liu, Haibin Yu, Yi Han, Wei Huang, Suming Zhou |
| Abstract |
Ghrelin receptor agonists have been established to be important in ameliorating the nutritional conditions in patients with malnutrition. However, some studies have reported inconsistent results. We aimed to coalesce the available evidence on the efficacy of ghrelin receptor agonists for the treatment of malnutrition. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE for relevant articles published through March 2016. Studies comparing the efficacy of ghrelin receptor agonists versus placebo in malnourished patients were eligible for inclusion. A total of 12 studies involving 1377 patients were included. Compared with placebo, ghrelin receptor agonists could increase the energy intake (standard mean difference [SMD] 2.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48 to 3.85, P < 0.001), lean body mass (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.25 kg, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.42, P = 0.006), fat mass (WMD 0.92 kg, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.8, P = 0.038), and grip strength (WMD 0.31 kg, 95% CI 0.207 to 0.414, P < 0.001) of patients with malnutrition. Our analysis indicated that ghrelin receptor agonists could improve the poor nutritional state of malnourished patients by increasing their energy intake, ameliorating their irregular body composition and improving their grip strength. However, these results might be less conclusive due to the limited sample sizes and one potential publication that has not been released. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 25% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
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 29 October 2021.
All research outputs
#14,281,116
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,086
of 1,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,355
of 270,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 270,398 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 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.