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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Implementation of an evidenced based nutrition support pathway for haematopoietic progenitor cell transplant patients
|
---|---|
Published in |
Clinical Nutrition, June 2014
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.06.006 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Sarah Andersen, Teresa Brown, Glen Kennedy, Merrilyn Banks |
Abstract |
The type of nutrition support given during haematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (HPCT) varies greatly between transplant units and often includes enteral nutrition (EN) and/or parenteral nutrition (PN). The aims of this study were to develop an evidenced based nutrition support pathway for HPCT patients and then evaluate changes in nutrition support practices post implementation of the pathway into clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 2 | 29% |
United States | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 57% |
Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 16 | 29% |
Other | 10 | 18% |
Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
Other | 6 | 11% |
Unknown | 11 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 38% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 25% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
Other | 3 | 5% |
Unknown | 14 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,896,290
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Nutrition
#1,710
of 3,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,845
of 242,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Nutrition
#17
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 242,746 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.