↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Management of acute pancreatitis in dogs: a critical appraisal with focus on feeding and analgesia

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Small Animal Practice, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
278 Mendeley
Title
Management of acute pancreatitis in dogs: a critical appraisal with focus on feeding and analgesia
Published in
Journal of Small Animal Practice, January 2015
DOI 10.1111/jsap.12296
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Mansfield, T. Beths

Abstract

Knowledge about acute pancreatitis has increased recently in both the medical and veterinary fields. Despite this expansion of knowledge, there are very few studies on treatment interventions in naturally occurring disease in dogs. As a result, treatment recommendations are largely extrapolated from experimental rodent models or general critical care principles. General treatment principles involve replacing fluid losses, maintaining hydrostatic pressure, controlling nausea and providing pain relief. Specific interventions recently advocated in human medicine include the use of neurokinin-1 antagonists for analgesia and early interventional feeding. The premise for early feeding is to improve the health of the intestinal tract, as unhealthy enterocytes are thought to perpetuate systemic inflammation. The evidence for early interventional feeding is not supported by robust clinical trials to date, but in humans there is evidence that it reduces hospitalisation time and in dogs it is well tolerated. This article summarises the major areas of management of acute pancreatitis in dogs and examines the level of evidence for each recommendation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Saint Kitts and Nevis 1 <1%
Unknown 275 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 53 19%
Student > Postgraduate 38 14%
Student > Master 32 12%
Student > Bachelor 31 11%
Researcher 21 8%
Other 38 14%
Unknown 65 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 138 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 50 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 <1%
Unspecified 2 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 67 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 17 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,909,100
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Small Animal Practice
#101
of 1,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,125
of 365,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Small Animal Practice
#2
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,899 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 365,199 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.