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 |
Clinical review: optimizing enteral nutrition for critically ill patients - a simple data-driven formula
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc10430 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Refaat A Hegazi, Paul E Wischmeyer |
| Abstract |
In modern critical care, the paradigm of 'therapeutic nutrition' is replacing traditional 'supportive nutrition'. Standard enteral formulas meet basic macro- and micronutrient needs; therapeutic enteral formulas meet these basic needs and also contain specific pharmaconutrients that may attenuate hyperinflammatory responses, enhance the immune responses to infection, or improve gastrointestinal tolerance. Choosing the right enteral feeding formula may positively affect a patient's outcome; targeted use of therapeutic formulas can reduce the incidence of infectious complications, shorten lengths of stay in the ICU and in the hospital, and lower risk for mortality. In this paper, we review principles of how to feed (enteral, parenteral, or both) and when to feed (early versus delayed start) patients who are critically ill. We discuss what to feed these patients in the context of specific pharmaconutrients in specialized feeding formulations, that is, arginine, glutamine, antioxidants, certain ω-3 and ω-6 fatty acids, hydrolyzed proteins, and medium-chain triglycerides. We summarize current expert guidelines for nutrition in patients with critical illness, and we present specific clinical evidence on the use of enteral formulas supplemented with anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating nutrients, and gastrointestinal tolerance-promoting nutritional formulas. Finally, we introduce an algorithm to help bedside clinicians make data-driven feeding decisions for patients with critical illness. |
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 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Greece | 2 | 1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Romania | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 178 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 18% |
| Researcher | 24 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Other | 51 | 27% |
| Unknown | 30 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 94 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Unknown | 38 | 20% |
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 21 October 2018.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,381
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,845
of 246,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#38
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 246,013 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.