↓ Skip to main content

Enteral nutrition feeding in Chinese intensive care units: a cross-sectional study involving 116 hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
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.
Title
Enteral nutrition feeding in Chinese intensive care units: a cross-sectional study involving 116 hospitals
Published in
Critical Care, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2159-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan Xing, Zhongheng Zhang, Lu Ke, Jing Zhou, Bingyu Qin, Hongkai Liang, Xiaomei Chen, Wenming Liu, Zhongmin Liu, Yuhang Ai, Difeng Wang, Qiuhui Wang, Qingshan Zhou, Fusen Zhang, Kejian Qian, Dongpo Jiang, Bin Zang, Yimin Li, Xiaobo Huang, Yan Qu, Yinguang Xie, Donglin Xu, Zhiqiang Zou, Xiangde Zheng, Jianbo Liu, Feng Guo, Yafeng Liang, Qiang Sun, Hongmei Gao, Yang Liu, Ping Chang, Aibin Ceng, Rongli Yang, Gaiqi Yao, Yun Sun, Xiaorong Wang, Yi Zhang, Yichao Wen, Jian Yu, Rongqing Sun, Zhiwei Li, Shiying Yuan, Yunlin Song, Peiyang Gao, Haiyan Liu, Zhaohui Zhang, Yunfu Wu, Biao Ma, Qiang Guo, Feng Shan, Mingshi Yang, Hailing Li, Yuanfei Li, Weihua Lu, Lei Wang, Chuangyun Qian, Zhiyong Wang, Jiandong Lin, Rumin Zhang, Peng Wan, Zhiyong Peng, Yuqiang Gong, Linxi Huang, Guobao Wu, Jie Sun, Yijun Deng, Dongwu Shi, Lixin Zhou, Fachun Zhou, Qindong Shi, Xiaodong Guo, Xueyan Liu, Weidong Wu, Xiangzhong Meng, Liandi Li, Weiwei Chen, Shusheng Li, Xianyao Wan, Zhixin Chao, An Zhang, Liming Gu, Wei Chen, Jinglan Wu, Lihua Zhou, Zhenhuan Zhang, Yibing Weng, Yongshun Feng, Chunli Yang, Yongjian Feng, Sumin Zhao, Fei Tong, Dong Hao, Hui Han, Baocai Fu, Chuanyong Gong, Zhiping Li, Kunlin Hu, Qiuye Kou, Han Zhang, Jie Liu, Chuming Fan, Xin Zhou, Xiumei Chen, Junli Sun, Xuejun Zhou, Bin Song, Cheng Sun, Liyun Zhao, Xinglu Dong, Linlin Zhang, Dafei Tong, Zhiguo Pan, Chuangjie Cai, Donghao Wang, Yingjun Dong, Yuanqi Gong, Zhisong Wu, Xinke Meng, Ping Wang, Weiqin Li

Abstract

There is a lack of large-scale epidemiological data on the clinical practice of enteral nutrition (EN) feeding in China. This study aimed to provide such data on Chinese hospitals and to investigate factors associated with EN delivery. This cross-sectional study was launched in 118 intensive care units (ICUs) of 116 mainland hospitals and conducted on April 26, 2017. At 00:00 on April 26, all patients in these ICUs were included. Demographic and clinical variables of patients on April 25 were obtained. The dates of hospitalization, ICU admission and nutrition initiation were reviewed. The outcome status 28 days after the day of investigation was obtained. A total of 1953 patients were included for analysis, including 1483 survivors and 312 nonsurvivors. The median study day was day 7 (IQR 2-19 days) after ICU entry. The proportions of subjects starting EN within 24, 48 and 72 h after ICU entry was 24.8% (84/352), 32.7% (150/459) and 40.0% (200/541), respectively. The proportion of subjects receiving > 80% estimated energy target within 24, 48, 72 h and 7 days after ICU entry was 10.5% (37/352), 10.9% (50/459), 11.8% (64/541) and 17.8% (162/910), respectively. Using acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) 1 as the reference in a Cox model, patients with AGI 2-3 were associated with reduced likelihood of EN initiation (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.353-0.599; p < 0.001). AGI 4 was significantly associated with lower hazard of EN administration (HR 0.056; 95% CI 0.008-0.398; p = 0.004). In a linear regression model, greater Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores (coefficient - 0.002, 95% CI - 0.008 to - 0.001; p = 0.024) and male gender (coefficient - 0.144, 95% CI - 0.203 to - 0.085; p < 0.001) were found to be associated with lower EN proportion. As compared with AGI 1, AGI 2-3 was associated with lower EN proportion (coefficient - 0.206, 95% CI - 0.273 to - 0.139; p < 0.001). The study showed that EN delivery was suboptimal in Chinese ICUs. More attention should be paid to EN use in the early days after ICU admission.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 16%
Student > Master 6 16%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 13 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 34%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 14 37%

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 20 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,154,172
of 13,887,828 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,083
of 4,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,480
of 271,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,887,828 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 271,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.