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 |
Early versus late parenteral nutrition in ICU patients: cost analysis of the EPaNIC trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11361 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simon Vanderheyden, Michael P Casaer, Katrien Kesteloot, Steven Simoens, Thomas De Rijdt, Guido Peers, Pieter J Wouters, Jocelijn Coenegrachts, Tine Grieten, Katleen Polders, Ann Maes, Alexander Wilmer, Jasperina Dubois, Greet Van den Berghe, Dieter Mesotten |
| Abstract |
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The EPaNIC randomized controlled multicentre trial showed that postponing initiation of parenteral nutrition (PN) in ICU-patients to beyond the first week (Late-PN) enhanced recovery, as compared with Early-PN. This was mediated by fewer infections, accelerated recovery from organ failure and reduced duration of hospitalization. Now, the trial's preplanned cost analysis (N = 4640) from the Belgian healthcare payers' perspective is reported. METHODS: Cost data were retrieved from individual patient invoices. Undiscounted total healthcare costs were calculated for the index hospital stay. A cost tree based on acquisition of new infections and on prolonged length-of-stay was constructed. Contribution of 8 cost categories to total hospitalization costs was analyzed. The origin of drug costs was clarified in detail through the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. The potential impact of Early-PN on total hospitalization costs in other healthcare systems was explored in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: ICU-patients developing new infection (24.4%) were responsible for 42.7% of total costs, while ICU-patients staying beyond one week (24.3%) accounted for 43.3% of total costs. Pharmacy-related costs represented 30% of total hospitalization costs and were increased by Early-PN (+608.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.01). Notably, costs for ATC-J (anti-infective agents) (+227.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.02) and ATC-B (comprising PN) (+220.00 EUR/patient, p = 0.006) drugs were increased by Early-PN. Sensitivity analysis revealed a mean total cost increase of 1,210.00 EUR/patient (p = 0.02) by Early-PN, when incorporating the full PN costs. CONCLUSIONS: The increased costs by Early-PN were mainly pharmacy-related and explained by higher expenditures for PN and anti-infective agents. The use of Early-PN in critically ill patients can thus not be recommended for both clinical (no benefit) and cost-related reasons. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00512122. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 3 | 30% |
| Unknown | 7 | 70% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 90% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Researcher | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 24% |
| Unknown | 19 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 59% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 24 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 July 2012.
All research outputs
#4,818,211
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,256
of 6,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,363
of 180,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#19
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,627 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 50% 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 180,187 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.