↓ Skip to main content

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
193 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
219 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 219 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 <1%
Researcher 1 <1%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 <1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Unknown 215 98%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 1%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Unknown 215 98%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 25 September 2019.
All research outputs
#960,821
of 13,589,056 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,947
of 10,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,171
of 255,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,589,056 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 10,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 255,755 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 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 67% of its contemporaries.