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 |
Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002837.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammed Al‐Omran, Zaina H AlBalawi, Mariam F Tashkandi, Lubna A Al‐Ansary |
| Abstract |
Acute pancreatitis creates a catabolic stress state promoting a systemic inflammatory response and nutritional deterioration. Adequate supply of nutrients plays an important role in recovery. Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) has been standard practice for providing exogenous nutrients to patients with severe acute pancreatitis. However, recent data suggest that enteral nutrition (EN) is not only feasible, but safer and more effective.Therefore, we sought to update our systematic review to re-evaluate the level of evidence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 20% |
| United States | 3 | 20% |
| Peru | 1 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 7% |
| India | 1 | 7% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 1 | 7% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 7% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 27% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Librarian | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 65% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 11 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,976,639
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,251
of 13,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,907
of 173,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#21
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 173,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.