↓ Skip to main content

When more is better

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
When more is better
Published in
Critical Care, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13791
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claude Pichard

Abstract

Nutrition support of critically ill patients with sepsis is one of the most debated issues among intensivists. The latest international sepsis guidelines recommend the prescription of a low volume of feeds through gastric or intestinal enteral nutrition (EN) for 7 days after admission to the ICU. The data to support such recommendations are scarce, and large trials are needed to clarify this issue. As reported in the previous issue of Critical Care, Elke and colleagues have revisited a database containing 13,630 ICU patients, of whom 2,270 met four inclusion criteria: sepsis or pneumonia, ICU stay of at least 3 days, mechanical ventilation within 48 hours after ICU admission, and exclusive EN. The goal of the authors was to assess the impact of various levels of energy and protein administration on mortality at 60 days after ICU admission and on the duration of mechanical ventilation. They found that standard levels of energy and protein recommended by international guidelines for patients in the ICU do also apply to patients with sepsis in the ICU. This is an important finding, which contradicts the current recommendations and beliefs for this subgroup of patients in the ICU and gives a strong rationale for launching a large prospective randomized trial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 25%
Researcher 5 25%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 15%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 July 2014.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#6,383
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,949
of 237,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#151
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 237,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.