| Title |
Nutritional therapy and infectious diseases: a two-edged sword
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, September 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1475-2891-5-21 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Haig Donabedian |
| Abstract |
The benefits and risks of nutritional therapies in the prevention and management of infectious diseases in the developed world are reviewed. There is strong evidence that early enteral feeding of patients prevents infections in a variety of traumatic and surgical illnesses. There is, however, little support for similar early feeding in medical illnesses. Parenteral nutrition increases the risk of infection when compared to enteral feeding or delayed nutrition. The use of gastric feedings appears to be as safe and effective as small bowel feedings. Dietary supplementation with glutamine appears to lower the risk of post-surgical infections and the ingestion of cranberry products has value in preventing urinary tract infections in women. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Mali | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 24% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 44% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 February 2013.
All research outputs
#13,682,891
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,041
of 1,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,312
of 66,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 66,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.