| Title |
Parenteral vs. enteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: a meta-analysis of trials using the intention to treat principle
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, December 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-004-2511-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fiona Simpson, Gordon Stuart Doig |
| Abstract |
Controversy surrounds the use of parenteral nutrition in critical illness. Previous overviews used composite scales to identify high-quality trials, which may mask important differences in true methodological quality. Using a component-based approach this meta-analysis investigated the effect of trial quality on overall conclusions reached when standard enteral nutrition is compared to standard parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| Spain | 3 | 1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 205 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 35 | 16% |
| Researcher | 28 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 21 | 10% |
| Professor | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 61 | 28% |
| Unknown | 35 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 142 | 65% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 5% |
| Unknown | 38 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 08 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,991,020
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,513
of 4,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,956
of 139,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 139,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.