↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Nutritional Status in Elderly Patients with Heart Failure

Overview of attention for article published in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
The Role of Nutritional Status in Elderly Patients with Heart Failure
Published in
The journal of nutrition, health & aging, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12603-017-0985-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Wleklik, Izabella Uchmanowicz, B. Jankowska-Polańska, C. Andreae, B. Regulska-Ilow

Abstract

Evidence indicates that malnutrition very frequently co-occurs with chronic heart failure (HF) and leads to a range of negative consequences. Studies show associations between malnutrition and wound healing disorders, an increased rate of postoperative complications, and mortality. In addition, considering the increasing age of patients with HF, a specific approach to their treatment is required. Guidelines proposed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for treating acute and chronic HF refer to the need to monitor and prevent malnutrition in HF patients. However, the guidelines feature no strict nutritional recommendations for HF patients, who are at high nutritional risk as a group, nor do they offer any such recommendations for the poor nutritional status subgroup, for which high morbidity and mortality rates have been observed. In the context of multidisciplinary healthcare, recommended by the ESC and proven by research to offer multifaceted benefits, nutritional status should be systematically assessed in HF patients. Malnutrition has become a challenge within healthcare systems and day-to-day clinical practice, especially in developed countries, where it affects the course of disease and patients' prognosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 36 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 23%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 41 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,982,712
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#1,405
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,038
of 340,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#28
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 340,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.