↓ Skip to main content

Glutamine – from conditionally essential to totally dispensable?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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 – from conditionally essential to totally dispensable?
Published in
Critical Care, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13964
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Wernerman

Abstract

Recently a large multicentre randomised controlled trial in critically ill patients reported harm to the patients given supplementary glutamine. In the original publication, no explanation was offered for why this result was obtained; a large number of studies have reported beneficial effects or no effect, but never before reported harm. These results have been commented upon in a number of communications. Now some of the authors of the multicentre randomised controlled trial present a review and meta-analysis of glutamine supplementation, and the discrepancy of results is suggested to relate to intravenous administration to patients of supplementary glutamine via parenteral nutrition or a combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition in contrast to enteral administration of supplementation or a combination of enteral and parenteral supplementation. To explain results by epidemiological means only, by combining results into a meta-analysis, is perhaps not the best way to explain mechanisms behind results. Meta-analyses are primarily hypothesis generating. Launching treatment without a solid mechanistic explanation is always risky. Glutamine supplementation of the critically ill comes into that category. Now we will all have to do our homework and try to understand whether supplementation or omission of glutamine for patients fed parenterally is a good idea or not.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Romania 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 22%
Student > Master 4 17%
Other 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Professor 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Sports and Recreations 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 July 2014.
All research outputs
#6,272,272
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,560
of 6,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,606
of 227,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#37
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 227,685 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 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 60% of its contemporaries.