You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Validity of the malnutrition screening tool for older adults at high risk of hospital readmission.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gerontological Nursing, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3928/00989134-20120509-03 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Min-Lin Wu, Mary D Courtney, Lillie M Shortridge-Baggett, Kathleen Finlayson, Elisabeth A Isenring |
| Abstract |
Malnutrition is a serious problem in older adults, particularly for those at risk of hospital readmission. The essential step in managing malnutrition is early identification using a valid nutrition screening tool. The purpose of this study was to validate the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) in older adults at high risk of hospital readmission. Two RNs administered the MST to identify malnutrition risk and compared it with the comprehensive Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) to assess nutritional status for patients 65 and older who had at least one risk factor for hospital readmission. The MST demonstrates substantial sensitivity, specificity, and agreement with the SGA. These findings indicate that nursing staff can use the MST as a valid tool for routine screening and rescreening to identify patients at risk of malnutrition. Use of the MST may prevent hospital-acquired malnutrition in acute hospitalized older adults at high risk of readmission. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 23% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
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 25 July 2012.
All research outputs
#22,760,732
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gerontological Nursing
#892
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,955
of 176,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gerontological Nursing
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 176,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.