↓ Skip to main content

Development and evaluation of a test program for Y-site compatibility testing of total parenteral nutrition and intravenous drugs

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Development and evaluation of a test program for Y-site compatibility testing of total parenteral nutrition and intravenous drugs
Published in
Nutrition Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12937-016-0149-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vigdis Staven, Siri Wang, Ingrid Grønlie, Ingunn Tho

Abstract

There is no standardized procedure or consensus to which tests should be performed to judge compatibility/incompatibility of intravenous drugs. The purpose of this study was to establish and evaluate a test program of methods suitable for detection of physical incompatibility in Y-site administration of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and drugs. Eight frequently used methods (dynamic light scattering, laser diffraction, light obscuration, turbidimetry, zeta potential, light microscopy, pH-measurements and visual examination using Tyndall beams), were scrutinized to elucidate strengths and weaknesses for compatibility testing. The responses of the methods were tested with samples containing precipitation of calcium phosphate and with heat destabilized TPN emulsions. A selection of drugs (acyclovir, ampicillin, ondansetron and paracetamol) was mixed with 3-in-1 TPN admixtures (Olimel® N5E, Kabiven® and SmofKabiven®) to assess compatibility (i.e. potential precipitates and emulsion stability). The obtained compatibility data was interpreted according to theory and compared to existing compatibility literature to further check the validity of the methods. Light obscuration together with turbidimetry, visual inspection and pH-measurements were able to capture signs of precipitations. For the analysis of emulsion stability, light obscuration and estimation of percent droplets above 5 μm (PFAT5) seemed to be the most sensitive method; however laser diffraction and monitoring changes in pH might be a useful support. Samples should always be compared to unmixed controls to reveal changes induced by the mixing. General acceptance criteria are difficult to define, although some limits are suggested based on current experience. The experimental compatibility data was supported by scattered reports in literature, further confirming the suitability of the test program. However, conflicting data are common, which complicates the comparison to existing literature. Testing of these complex blends should be based on a combination of several methods and accompanied by theoretical considerations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 23%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Lecturer 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 25 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 21 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 27 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,448,600
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#555
of 1,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,100
of 300,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#13
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 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 1,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 300,114 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 59% of its contemporaries.