↓ Skip to main content

Glutamine supplementation in the critically ill: friend or foe?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Glutamine supplementation in the critically ill: friend or foe?
Published in
Critical Care, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13879
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten, Arthur RH van Zanten

Abstract

In the previous issue of Critical Care, Mori and colleagues demonstrate that glutamine supplementation in mechanically ventilated patients as part of parenteral nutrition increases plasma glutamine concentration and glutamine utilization, but does not mitigate protein degradation and even increases de novo glutamine production. Studies suggest that protein degradation is regulated by the degree of inflammation. Immune cells utilize large amounts of glutamine and derive their glutamine requirements from muscle protein degradation. We hypothesize that the effects of glutamine supplementation depend on the degree of inflammation. Infusing large amounts of exogenous glutamine into patients with inflammatory conditions like sepsis and multiple organ failure may not only enhance immune competence, but may potentially augment the inflammatory response and thereby negatively influence outcome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 17%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Professor 2 8%
Other 6 25%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 63%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Materials Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 June 2020.
All research outputs
#8,565,943
of 16,207,793 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,464
of 5,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,003
of 191,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#58
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,207,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,100 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 191,557 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.