↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of parenteral nutrition use in patients undergoing major upper gastro-intestinal surgery

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of parenteral nutrition use in patients undergoing major upper gastro-intestinal surgery
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, March 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11096-015-0099-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Deleenheer, Peter Declercq, Hans Van Veer, Philippe Nafteux, Isabel Spriet

Abstract

Background After major upper gastro-intestinal surgery, enteral feeding is often hampered. There is still no consensus on which route of nutrition is preferable in patients undergoing this type of surgery. Current ESPEN guidelines recommend parenteral nutrition in undernourished patients, if caloric requirements cannot be met orally/enterally within 7 days and enteral nutrition is contraindicated. Objective The current practice of systematic parenteral nutrition at the thoracic surgery ward of the University Hospitals Leuven was evaluated based on the ESPEN guidelines. Method This prospective observational study included patients undergoing upper gastro-intestinal surgery and receiving postoperative parenteral nutrition. Parenteral nutrition use was considered appropriate when patients were undernourished and unable to obtain adequate caloric requirements by oral or enteral feeding within 7 days. Results Twenty-five out of 35 patients were nutritionally at risk. In 9 of 25 patients, the indication for parenteral nutrition was considered justified. As the intestinal tract below the anastomosis site remains accessible in the total studied population, enteral nutrition might be an option. Unfortunately, an appropriate jejunostomy tube was not available at our institution. Conclusion In accordance to the ESPEN guidelines, enteral nutrition can replace parenteral nutrition in most thoracic surgery patients, but only if an appropriate enteral access is available.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 29%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,327,280
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#768
of 1,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,698
of 262,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 262,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.