| Title |
The intensive care medicine research agenda in nutrition and metabolism
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-017-4711-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yaseen M. Arabi, Michael P. Casaer, Marianne Chapman, Daren K. Heyland, Carole Ichai, Paul E. Marik, Robert G. Martindale, Stephen A. McClave, Jean-Charles Preiser, Jean Reignier, Todd W. Rice, Greet Van den Berghe, Arthur R. H. van Zanten, Peter J. M. Weijs |
| Abstract |
The objectives of this review are to summarize the current practices and major recent advances in critical care nutrition and metabolism, review common beliefs that have been contradicted by recent trials, highlight key remaining areas of uncertainty, and suggest recommendations for the top 10 studies/trials to be done in the next 10 years. Recent literature was reviewed and developments and knowledge gaps were summarized. The panel identified candidate topics for future trials in critical care nutrition and metabolism. Then, members of the panel rated each one of the topics using a grading system (0-4). Potential studies were ranked on the basis of average score. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have challenged several concepts, including the notion that energy expenditure must be met universally in all critically ill patients during the acute phase of critical illness, the routine monitoring of gastric residual volume, and the value of immune-modulating nutrition. The optimal protein dose combined with standardized active and passive mobilization during the acute phase and post-acute phase of critical illness were the top ranked studies for the next 10 years. Nutritional assessment, nutritional strategies in critically obese patients, and the effects of continuous versus intermittent enteral nutrition were also among the highest-ranking studies. Priorities for clinical research in the field of nutritional management of critically ill patients were suggested, with the prospect that different nutritional interventions targeted to the appropriate patient population will be examined for their effect on facilitating recovery and improving survival in adequately powered and properly designed studies, probably in conjunction with physical activity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 16 | 20% |
| United States | 9 | 11% |
| Australia | 7 | 9% |
| Spain | 4 | 5% |
| Saudi Arabia | 3 | 4% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| Ireland | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
| Mexico | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 30 | 38% |
| Scientists | 16 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 282 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 37 | 13% |
| Other | 32 | 11% |
| Researcher | 30 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 6% |
| Other | 66 | 23% |
| Unknown | 74 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 116 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 19 | 7% |
| Unknown | 90 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 12 December 2019.
All research outputs
#901,780
of 25,257,066 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#864
of 5,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,361
of 315,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#15
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,257,066 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 315,067 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.