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 |
How to understand the results of studies of glutamine supplementation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-1090-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jan Wernerman |
| Abstract |
The lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind possible beneficial and possible harmful effects of glutamine supplementation makes the design of interventional studies of glutamine supplementations difficult, perhaps even hazardous. What is the interventional target, and how might it relate to outcomes? Taking one step further and aggregating results from interventional studies into meta-analyses does not diminish the difficulties. Therefore, conducting basic research seems to be a better idea than groping in the dark and exposing patients to potential harm in this darkness. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 3 | 13% |
| Spain | 3 | 13% |
| El Salvador | 2 | 9% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Greece | 1 | 4% |
| Poland | 1 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 52% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 30% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#2,724,897
of 25,529,543 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,346
of 6,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,334
of 396,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#186
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,529,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,580 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 396,354 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 466 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.