↓ Skip to main content

A randomized controlled pilot study to evaluate the effect of an enteral formulation designed to improve gastrointestinal tolerance in the critically ill patient—the SPIRIT trial

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
45 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 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.
Title
A randomized controlled pilot study to evaluate the effect of an enteral formulation designed to improve gastrointestinal tolerance in the critically ill patient—the SPIRIT trial
Published in
Critical Care, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1730-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephan M. Jakob, Lukas Bütikofer, David Berger, Michael Coslovsky, Jukka Takala

Abstract

Diarrhea is frequent in patients in intensive care units (ICU) and is associated with discomfort and complications and may increase the length of stay and nursing workload. This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled single-center pilot study to assess the incidence and frequency of diarrhea and the respective effects of a modified enteral diet (intervention: Peptamen® AF, rich in proteins, medium chain triglycerides and fish oil) compared to a standard diet (control: Isosource® Energy) in 90 randomized adult patients (intervention, n = 46; control, n = 44) with an ICU stay ≥5 days and tube feeding ≥3 days. Tube feeding was initiated within 72 h of ICU admission and continued up to 10 days. The caloric goal was adjusted to needs by indirect calorimetry. Gastrointestinal function, nutritional intake, and nursing workload were recorded. Follow-up was until 28 days after randomization. Median age was 63.3 (interquartile range (IQR) 51.0-73.2) years and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II was 61.0 (IQR 47.8-74). Time to reach caloric goal (intervention: 2.2 (0.8-3.7) days (median, IQR); control: 2.0 (1.3-2.7) days; p = 0.16), length of time on study nutrition (intervention: 5.0 (3.6-6.4) days; control: 7.0 (5.3-8.7) days; p = 0.26), and calorie intake (intervention: 18.0 (12.5-20.9) kcal/kg/day; control 19.7 (17.3-23.1) kcal/kg/day; p = 0.08) did not differ between groups, with a higher protein intake for Peptamen® group (1.13 (0.78-1.31) g/kg/day vs 0.80 (0.70-0.94); p < 0.001). No difference in diarrhea incidence (intervention group: 29 (64%); control group: 31 (70%); p = 0.652), use of fecal collectors (23 (51%) vs. 24 (55%); p = 0.83), or diarrhea-free days (161 (64%) vs 196 (68%); p = 0.65) was found. Nursing workload and cost for diarrhea care were not different between the groups. In a post-hoc analysis, adjusted for treatment group, age, sex, and SAPS II score, diarrhea was associated with length of mechanical ventilation (9.5 (6.0-13.1) vs. 3.9 (3.2-4.6) days; p = 0.006) and length of ICU stay (11.0 (8.9-13.1) vs. 5.0 (3.8-6.2) days; p = 0.001). In this pilot study, we found a high incidence of diarrhea, which was not attenuated by Peptamen® AF. Patients with diarrhea stayed longer in the ICU. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01581957 . Registered on 18 April 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 155 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Master 21 13%
Other 13 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 54 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 58 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 26 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,575,286
of 25,529,543 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,380
of 6,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,427
of 332,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#24
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,529,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 332,033 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 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 72% of its contemporaries.