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 |
A review of feeding methods used in the treatment of anorexia nervosa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Eating Disorders, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2050-2974-1-36 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan Hart, Richard C Franklin, Janice Russell, Suzanne Abraham |
| Abstract |
Clear evidence based guidelines on the best and safest method of achieving and maintaining normal body weight during inpatient treatment of Anorexia Nervosa (AN) are currently not available. Oral feeding with food alone, high-energy liquid supplements, nasogastric feeding and parenteral nutrition all have the potential to achieve weight gain in the treatment of AN but the advantages and disadvantages of each method have not been comprehensively evaluated. A literature search was undertaken to identify papers describing feeding methods used during inpatient treatment of AN. The selection criteria searched for papers that described the feeding method; and reported weight change variables such as admission and discharge weight in kilograms, or Body Mass Index; or weight change over the course of inpatient treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 17 | 21% |
| Unknown | 12 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 16% |
| Psychology | 11 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 November 2013.
All research outputs
#7,432,894
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Eating Disorders
#502
of 786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,350
of 198,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Eating Disorders
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 198,172 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.