↓ Skip to main content

The evolution of nutrition in critical care: how much, how soon?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

8 tweeters


34 Dimensions

Readers on

126 Mendeley
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.
The evolution of nutrition in critical care: how much, how soon?
Published in
Critical Care, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc11505
Pubmed ID

Paul E Wischmeyer


Critical care is a very recent advance in the history of human evolution. Prior to the existence of ICU care, when the saber-tooth tiger attacked you had but a few critical hours to recover or you died. Mother Nature, and her survival of the fittest mentality, would never have favored the survival of the modern ICU patient. We now support ICU patients for weeks, or even months. During this period, patients appear to undergo phases of critical illness. A simplification of this concept would include an acute phase, a chronic phase, and a recovery phase. Given this, our nutrition care should probably be different in each phase, and targeted to address the evolution of the metabolic response to injury. For example, as insulin resistance is maximal in the acute phase of critical illness, perhaps we have evolved to benefit from a more hypocaloric, high-protein intervention to minimize muscle catabolism. In the chronic phase, and especially in the recovery phase, more aggressive calorie delivery and perhaps proanabolic therapy may be needed. As the body has evolved limited stores of some key nutrients, adequate nutrition may hinge on more than just how many calories we provide. The provision of adequate protein and other key nutrients at the right time may also be vital. This review will attempt to utilize the fundamentals of our evolution as humans and the rapidly growing body of new clinical research to answer questions about how to administer the right nutrients, in the right amounts, at the right time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 120 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Researcher 17 13%
Other 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 10%
Other 37 29%
Unknown 10 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Engineering 4 3%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 11 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 09 October 2015.
All research outputs
of 14,123,268 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
of 4,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 165,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,123,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 165,129 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 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 62% of its contemporaries.