↓ Skip to main content

Current clinical nutrition practices in critically ill patients in Latin America: a multinational observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 6,555)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
55 news outlets
twitter
28 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 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
Current clinical nutrition practices in critically ill patients in Latin America: a multinational observational study
Published in
Critical Care, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1805-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karin Papapietro Vallejo, Carolina Méndez Martínez, Alfredo A. Matos Adames, Vanessa Fuchs-Tarlovsky, Guillermo Carlos Contreras Nogales, Roger Enrique Riofrio Paz, Mario Ignacio Perman, Maria Isabel Toulson Davisson Correia, Dan Linetzky Waitzberg

Abstract

Malnutrition in critically ill adults in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with a significantly elevated risk of mortality. Adequate nutrition therapy is crucial to optimise outcomes. Currently, there is a paucity of such data in Latin America. Our aims were to characterise current clinical nutrition practices in the ICU setting in Latin America and evaluate whether current practices meet caloric and protein requirements in critically ill patients receiving nutrition therapy. We conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective, observational study in eight Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, and Peru). Eligible patients were critically ill adults hospitalised in the ICU and receiving enteral nutrition (EN) and/or parenteral nutrition (PN) on the Screening Day and the previous day (day -1). Caloric and protein balance on day -1, nutritional status, and prescribed nutrition therapy were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of reaching daily caloric and protein targets. The analysis included 1053 patients from 116 hospitals. Evaluation of nutritional status showed that 74.1% of patients had suspected/moderate or severe malnutrition according to the Subjective Global Assessment. Prescribed nutrition therapy included EN alone (79.9%), PN alone (9.4%), and EN + PN (10.7%). Caloric intake met >90% of the daily target in 59.7% of patients on day -1; a caloric deficit was present in 40.3%, with a mean (±SD) daily caloric deficit of -688.8 ± 455.2 kcal. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that combined administration of EN + PN was associated with a statistically significant increase in the probability of meeting >90% of daily caloric and protein targets compared with EN alone (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.39; p = 0.038). In the ICU setting in Latin America, malnutrition was highly prevalent and caloric intake failed to meet targeted energy delivery in 40% of critically ill adults receiving nutrition therapy. Supplemental administration of PN was associated with improved energy and protein delivery; however, PN use was low. Collectively, these findings suggest an opportunity for more effective utilisation of supplemental PN in critically ill adults who fail to receive adequate nutrition from EN alone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 214 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 13%
Student > Bachelor 27 13%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 7%
Other 13 6%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 74 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 1%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 84 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 448. 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 27 November 2018.
All research outputs
#62,021
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#14
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,313
of 324,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 324,511 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 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 98% of its contemporaries.