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 |
Close to recommended caloric and protein intake by enteral nutrition is associated with better clinical outcome of critically ill septic patients: secondary analysis of a large international nutrition database
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc13720 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gunnar Elke, Miao Wang, Norbert Weiler, Andrew G Day, Daren K Heyland |
| Abstract |
Current international sepsis guidelines recommend low dose enteral nutrition (EN) for the first week. This contradicts other nutrition guidelines for heterogenous groups of ICU patients. Data on the optimal dose of EN in septic patients are lacking. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of energy and protein amount given by EN on clinical outcomes in a large cohort of critically ill septic patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 Kingdom | 2 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Greece | 1 | 7% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 7% |
| Japan | 1 | 7% |
| South Africa | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 230 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 12% |
| Other | 28 | 12% |
| Researcher | 28 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 46 | 20% |
| Unknown | 47 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 99 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 42 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 20 | 9% |
| Unknown | 51 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 13 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,870,142
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,672
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,614
of 327,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#10
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 327,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.