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 |
Gastric versus postpyloric enteral nutrition in elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years) on mechanical ventilation: a single-center randomized trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-018-2092-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Youfeng Zhu, Haiyan Yin, Rui Zhang, Xiaoling Ye, Jianrui Wei |
| Abstract |
The risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is reduced when postpyloric enteral nutrition (EN) is administered compared to when gastric EN is administered in specific populations. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that postpyloric EN is superior to gastric EN in reducing the incidence of VAP in elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years) who are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and require mechanical ventilation. We performed a single-center randomized clinical trial involving elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years) who were admitted to the ICU and required mechanical ventilation. The patients were randomly assigned to either the postpyloric EN group or the gastric EN group. The primary outcome was the VAP rate. Of the 836 patients screened, 141 patients were included in the study (70 in the postpyloric EN group and 71 in the gastric EN group). The patients in the postpyloric EN group were 82.0 (75.0-99.0) years old (male 61.4%), and those in the gastric EN group were 82.0 (75.0-92.0) years old (male 63.4%). The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 28.09 ± 6.75 in the postpyloric EN group and 27.80 ± 7.60 in the gastric EN group (P = 0.43). VAP was observed in 8 of 70 patients (11.4%) in the postpyloric EN group and in 18 of 71 patients (25.4%) in the gastric EN group, which resulted in a significant between-group difference (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15-0.94; P = 0.04). In the postpyloric EN group, there were significant reductions in vomiting (12 patients in the postpyloric EN group vs 29 patients in the gastric EN group; OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14-0.65; P = 0.002) and abdominal distension (18 patients in the postpyloric EN group vs 33 patients in the gastric EN group; OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.81; P = 0.01). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding mortality and other secondary outcomes. Our study demonstrated that, compared with gastric EN, postpyloric EN reduced the VAP rate among elderly patients who were admitted to the ICU and required mechanical ventilation. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-IPR-16008485 . Registered on 17 May 2016. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 3 | 8% |
| United States | 3 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 6% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| China | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 19% |
| Scientists | 4 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 103 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 10% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 31 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 14% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 33 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 17 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,802,499
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,601
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,001
of 340,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#41
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 340,861 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.