↓ Skip to main content

Glutamine supplementation in the critically ill: friend or foe?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
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.
Title
Glutamine supplementation in the critically ill: friend or foe?
Published in
Critical Care, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13879
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten, Arthur RH van Zanten

Abstract

In the previous issue of Critical Care, Mori and colleagues demonstrate that glutamine supplementation in mechanically ventilated patients as part of parenteral nutrition increases plasma glutamine concentration and glutamine utilization, but does not mitigate protein degradation and even increases de novo glutamine production. Studies suggest that protein degradation is regulated by the degree of inflammation. Immune cells utilize large amounts of glutamine and derive their glutamine requirements from muscle protein degradation. We hypothesize that the effects of glutamine supplementation depend on the degree of inflammation. Infusing large amounts of exogenous glutamine into patients with inflammatory conditions like sepsis and multiple organ failure may not only enhance immune competence, but may potentially augment the inflammatory response and thereby negatively influence outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Materials Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#7,777,586
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,172
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,383
of 240,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#76
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 240,993 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.