↓ Skip to main content

Small bowel feeding and risk of pneumonia in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Small bowel feeding and risk of pneumonia in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Published in
Critical Care, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12806
Pubmed ID
Authors

Waleed Alhazzani, Abdulaziz Almasoud, Roman Jaeschke, Benjamin W Y Lo, Anees Sindi, Sultan Altayyar, Alison E Fox-Robichaud

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of small bowel feeding compared with gastric feeding on the frequency of pneumonia and other patient-important outcomes in critically ill patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 20%
Student > Master 12 16%
Other 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Professor 7 9%
Other 19 25%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 6 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 September 2013.
All research outputs
#3,137,242
of 7,527,746 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,917
of 3,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,601
of 130,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#56
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,527,746 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 56th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 130,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.