↓ Skip to main content

The role of nutritional support in the physical and functional recovery of critically ill patients: a narrative review

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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
142 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 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
The role of nutritional support in the physical and functional recovery of critically ill patients: a narrative review
Published in
Critical Care, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1810-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle E. Bear, Liesl Wandrag, Judith L. Merriweather, Bronwen Connolly, Nicholas Hart, Michael P. W. Grocott, on behalf of the Enhanced Recovery After Critical Illness Programme Group (ERACIP) investigators

Abstract

The lack of benefit from randomised controlled trials has resulted in significant controversy regarding the role of nutrition during critical illness in terms of long-term recovery and outcome. Although methodological caveats with a failure to adequately appreciate biological mechanisms may explain these disappointing results, it must be acknowledged that nutritional support during early critical illness, when considered alone, may have limited long-term functional impact.This narrative review focuses specifically on recent clinical trials and evaluates the impact of nutrition during critical illness on long-term physical and functional recovery.Specific focus on the trial design and methodological limitations has been considered in detail. Limitations include delivery of caloric and protein targets, patient heterogeneity, short duration of intervention, inappropriate clinical outcomes and a disregard for baseline nutritional status and nutritional intake in the post-ICU period.With survivorship at the forefront of critical care research, it is imperative that nutrition studies carefully consider biological mechanisms and trial design because these factors can strongly influence outcomes, in particular long-term physical and functional outcome. Failure to do so may lead to inconclusive clinical trials and consequent rejection of the potentially beneficial effects of nutrition interventions during critical illness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 142 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 185 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 15%
Other 18 10%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Professor 12 6%
Other 46 25%
Unknown 52 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 65 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. 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 14 August 2018.
All research outputs
#505,900
of 25,789,020 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#300
of 6,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,502
of 325,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#11
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,789,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 325,674 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.