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 |
Malnutrition screening tools: Comparison against two validated nutrition assessment methods in older medical inpatients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.nut.2012.04.007 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adrienne M. Young, Sarah Kidston, Merrilyn D. Banks, Alison M. Mudge, Elisabeth A. Isenring |
| Abstract |
Although several validated nutritional screening tools have been developed to "triage" inpatients for malnutrition diagnosis and intervention, there continues to be debate in the literature as to which tool/tools clinicians should use in practice. This study compared the accuracy of seven validated screening tools in older medical inpatients against two validated nutritional assessment methods. |
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 294 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 285 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 55 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 53 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 21 | 7% |
| Researcher | 17 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 47 | 16% |
| Unknown | 84 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 102 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 59 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 4% |
| Unknown | 96 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 December 2014.
All research outputs
#3,583,518
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition
#768
of 3,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,776
of 179,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition
#10
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 179,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.