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 |
Supplemental parenteral nutrition versus usual care in critically ill adults: a pilot randomized controlled study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-018-1939-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma J. Ridley, Andrew R. Davies, Rachael Parke, Michael Bailey, Colin McArthur, Lyn Gillanders, D. James Cooper, Shay McGuinness, for the Supplemental Parenteral Nutrition Clinical Investigators |
| Abstract |
In the critically ill, energy delivery from enteral nutrition (EN) is often less than the estimated energy requirement. Parenteral nutrition (PN) as a supplement to EN may increase energy delivery. We aimed to determine if an individually titrated supplemental PN strategy commenced 48-72 hours following ICU admission and continued for up to 7 days would increase energy delivery to critically ill adults compared to usual care EN delivery. This study was a prospective, parallel group, phase II pilot trial conducted in six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Mechanically ventilated adults with at least one organ failure and EN delivery below 80% of estimated energy requirement in the previous 24 hours received either a supplemental PN strategy (intervention group) or usual care EN delivery. EN in the usual care group could be supplemented with PN if EN remained insufficient after usual methods to optimise delivery were attempted. There were 100 patients included in the study and 99 analysed. Overall, 71% of the study population were male, with a mean (SD) age of 59 (17) years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18.2 (6.7) and body mass index of 29.6 (5.8) kg/m2. Significantly greater energy (mean (SD) 1712 (511) calories vs. 1130 (601) calories, p < 0.0001) and proportion of estimated energy requirement (mean (SD) 83 (25) % vs. 53 (29) %, p < 0.0001) from EN and/or PN was delivered to the intervention group compared to usual care. Delivery of protein and proportion of estimated protein requirements were also greater in the intervention group (mean (SD) 86 (25) g, 86 (23) %) compared to usual care (mean (SD) 53 (29) g, 51 (25) %, p < 0.0001). Antibiotic use, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality and functional outcomes were similar between the two groups. This individually titrated supplemental PN strategy applied over 7 days significantly increased energy delivery when compared to usual care delivery. Clinical and functional outcomes were similar between the two patient groups. Clinical Trial registry details: NCT01847534 (First registered 22 April 2013, last updated 31 July 2016). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 92 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 States | 15 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 12 | 13% |
| Australia | 7 | 8% |
| Brazil | 5 | 5% |
| Spain | 5 | 5% |
| Colombia | 4 | 4% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| Mexico | 2 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 54 | 59% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 29 | 32% |
| Scientists | 7 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 162 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Researcher | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 17% |
| Unknown | 53 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Unknown | 64 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 15 September 2019.
All research outputs
#832,418
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#611
of 6,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,328
of 452,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#20
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 452,544 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.