↓ Skip to main content

Micronutrient content in enteral nutrition formulas: comparison with the dietary reference values for healthy populations

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Micronutrient content in enteral nutrition formulas: comparison with the dietary reference values for healthy populations
Published in
Nutrition Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12937-016-0152-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Iacone, Clelia Scanzano, Lidia Santarpia, Anna D’Isanto, Franco Contaldo, Fabrizio Pasanisi

Abstract

The micronutrient content in standard enteral mixtures should be closer to the dietary reference values for a healthy population since standard enteral diets are formulated for subjects with no special nutritional needs. This study compares the micronutrient content of the most common enteral nutrition (EN) formulas with European dietary reference values (DRVs) for healthy population. Sixty-two nutritionally complete enteral formulas were considered. The micronutrient content was calculated by multiplying the value reported on the nutritional information panel of each formula by the daily dose usually prescribed. The comparison between the micronutrient content of all enteral formulas evaluated and the DRVs indicates that daily fluoride and vitamin K requirements were not covered, while an oversupply of many other micronutrients was provided. Moreover, in some enteral formulas, at a dose of 2000 Kcal/day, zinc and vitamin A content exceeded the tolerable upper limits and, for one diabetes-specific enteral formula, the chromium content exceeded the relevant European standards in both 1500 and 2000 Kcal/day diets. Most enteral formulas evaluated are generally suitable for patients on long-term total EN and formulas with higher content of a specific micronutrient may be a useful tool for patients affected by specific clinical conditions, at least for a period of time, then switching to standard enteral mixtures. The availability of nutritional enteral formulas, well balanced also for micronutrient intake, will further improve individualized treatments, particularly for patients on long-term total EN.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 24 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 25 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 October 2016.
All research outputs
#13,112,875
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#996
of 1,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,716
of 301,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#22
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 301,001 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.