↓ 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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 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 22 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 198 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 196 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 29%
Student > Bachelor 31 16%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Postgraduate 18 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 25 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 8%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 40 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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
#1,211,178
of 13,590,138 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,583
of 10,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,118
of 296,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,590,138 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 296,013 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 256 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 60% of its contemporaries.