↓ Skip to main content

Immunonutrition as an adjuvant therapy for burns

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 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
Immunonutrition as an adjuvant therapy for burns
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007174.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah B Tan, Stefan Danilla, Alexandra Murray, Ramón Serra, Regina El Dib, Tom OW Henderson, Jason Wasiak

Abstract

With burn injuries involving a large total body surface area (TBSA), the body can enter a state of breakdown, resulting in a condition similar to that seen with severe lack of proper nutrition. In addition, destruction of the effective skin barrier leads to loss of normal body temperature regulation and increased risk of infection and fluid loss. Nutritional support is common in the management of severe burn injury, and the approach of altering immune system activity with specific nutrients is termed immunonutrition. Three potential targets have been identified for immunonutrition: mucosal barrier function, cellular defence and local or systemic inflammation. The nutrients most often used for immunonutrition are glutamine, arginine, branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs), omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids and nucleotides.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 253 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 24%
Student > Bachelor 44 17%
Researcher 30 12%
Student > Postgraduate 22 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 7%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 41 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 18%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 62 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 20 January 2015.
All research outputs
#1,779,956
of 16,675,445 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,353
of 11,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,256
of 310,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,675,445 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 310,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 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 55% of its contemporaries.