↓ Skip to main content

Fluid intake in urban China: results of the 2016 Liq.In7 national cross-sectional surveys

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Nutrition, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
Title
Fluid intake in urban China: results of the 2016 Liq.In7 national cross-sectional surveys
Published in
European Journal of Nutrition, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00394-018-1755-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. Zhang, C. Morin, I. Guelinckx, L. A. Moreno, S. A. Kavouras, J. Gandy, H. Martinez, J. Salas-Salvadó, G. Ma

Abstract

To describe total fluid intake (TFI) and types of fluid consumed in urban China by age, gender, regions and city socioeconomic status relative to the adequate intakes (AI) set by the Chinese Nutrition Society. In 2016, participants aged 4-9, 10-17 and 18-55 years were recruited via a door-to-door approach in 27 cities in China. In total, 2233 participants were included. The volumes and sources of TFI were collected using the Liq.In 7 record, assisted by a photographic booklet of standard fluid containers. The mean daily TFI among children, adolescents and adults were 966, 1177 and 1387 mL, respectively. In each age group, TFI was significantly higher in male vs female (981 vs 949, 1240 vs 1113, 1442 vs 1332; mL). Approximately 45, 36 and 28% of children, adolescents and adults reached the AI. Although plain water was the highest contributor to TFI, the contribution of sugar sweetened beverages (SSB) was ranked in the top three together with water and milk and derivatives. Approximately 27, 48 and 47% of children, adolescents and adults consumed more than one serving of SSB per day, respectively. A relatively large proportion of participants did not drink enough to meet the AI in urban China. Many children, adolescents and adults consumed more than one serving of SSB per day. A majority of children, adolescents and adults in the study population do not meet both quantitative and qualitative fluid intake requirements, and signal socioeconomic disparities.

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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 36 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Unspecified 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 38 42%
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 12 November 2018.
All research outputs
#14,417,376
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nutrition
#1,611
of 2,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,882
of 328,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nutrition
#46
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 328,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.