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 |
Intravenous fish oil lipid emulsions in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-0888-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William Manzanares, Pascal L Langlois, Rupinder Dhaliwal, Margot Lemieux, Daren K Heyland |
| Abstract |
Intravenous fish oil (FO) lipid emulsions (LEs) are rich in ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, which exhibit anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. We previously demonstrated that FO containing emulsions may be able to decrease mortality and ventilation days in the critically ill. Over the last year, several additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of FO containing emulsions have been published. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to update our systematic review aimed to elucidate the efficacy of FO-containing emulsions on clinical outcomes in the critically ill. We searched computerized databases from 1980 to 2014. We included 4 new RCTs conducted in critically ill adult patients that evaluated FO containing emulsions in parenterally or enterally fed patients. A total of 10 RCTs (n = 733) met inclusion criteria. The mean methodological score was 8 (range, 3-12). No effect on overall mortality was found. When the results of 5 RCTs that reported infections were aggregated, FO containing emulsions significantly reduced infections (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.92; P = 0.02, heterogeneity I (2) = 0%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that predominantly enteral nutrition (EN) based trials showed a tendency towards a reduction in mortality (RR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.40-1.18, P = 0.18, heterogeneity I (2) = 35%). High quality trials showed a significant reduction in hospital length of stay (LOS) (WMD -7.42; 95% CI, -11.89, -2.94, P = 0.001) although low quality trials had no effect (P = 0.45); test for subgroup differences on hospital LOS was significant (P = 0.001). FO containing emulsions may be associated with a reduction in infections, as well as could be associated with a reduction in duration of ventilation and hospital length of stay. Further large scale RCTs, which should aim to consolidate potential positive treatment effects, are warranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Puerto Rico | 2 | 20% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 120 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 15% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 34 | 27% |
| Unknown | 29 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 30 | 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 21 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,332,855
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,630
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,632
of 395,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#308
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 395,408 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.