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 |
Should we stop prescribing metoclopramide as a prokinetic drug in critically ill patients?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0502-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Y Gert van der Meer, Willem A Venhuizen, Daren K Heyland, Arthur RH van Zanten |
| Abstract |
Regulatory agencies in North America and Europe recently re-evaluated the safety of metoclopramide. This re-evaluation resulted in recommendations and restrictions in order to minimise the risk of neurological and other adverse reactions associated with the use of metoclopramide. In the ICU, off-label prescription of metoclopramide is common. We have reviewed the evidence for safety, effectiveness and dosing of metoclopramide in critically ill patients. Furthermore, tachyphylaxis is addressed and alternatives are summarised. Finally, recommendations are presented not to abandon use of metoclopramide in ICU patients, because metoclopramide is considered effective in enhancing gastric emptying and facilitating early enteral nutrition. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 18% |
| Costa Rica | 2 | 18% |
| Greece | 1 | 9% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 43% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 15 | 18% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 20 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 February 2015.
All research outputs
#6,325,690
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,622
of 6,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,091
of 263,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#42
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 263,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 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 64% of its contemporaries.