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 |
Enhanced Protein‐Energy Provision via the Enteral Route in Critically Ill Patients (PEP uP Protocol)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition in Clinical Practice, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1177/0884533615601638 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zheng Yii Lee, Mohd Yusof Barakatun‐Nisak, Ibrahim Noor Airini, Daren K. Heyland |
| Abstract |
Nutrition support is an integral part of care among critically ill patients. However, critically ill patients are commonly underfed, leading to consequences such as increased length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, time on mechanical ventilation, infectious complications, and mortality. Nevertheless, the prevalence of underfeeding has not resolved since the first description of this problem more than 15 years ago. This may be due to the traditional conservative feeding approaches. A novel feeding protocol (the Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route Feeding Protocol in Critically Ill Patients [PEP uP] protocol) was proposed and proven to improve feeding adequacy significantly. However, some of the components in the protocol are controversial and subject to debate. This article is a review of the supporting evidences and some of the controversy associated with each component of the PEP uP protocol. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 25% |
| Spain | 2 | 17% |
| Ireland | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 58% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 93 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 27 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 February 2016.
All research outputs
#4,012,184
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition in Clinical Practice
#310
of 1,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,039
of 272,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition in Clinical Practice
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,398 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 272,855 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.