↓ Skip to main content

Enteral nutrition formulations for acute pancreatitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 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
Enteral nutrition formulations for acute pancreatitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010605.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Goran Poropat, Vanja Giljaca, Goran Hauser, Davor Štimac

Abstract

Acute pancreatitis is a common and potentially lethal disease with increasing incidence. Severe cases are characterised by high mortality, and despite improvements in intensive care management, no specific treatment relevantly improves clinical outcomes of the disease. Meta-analyses suggest that enteral nutrition is more effective than conventional treatment consisting of discontinuation of oral intake with use of total parenteral nutrition. However, no systematic review has compared different enteral nutrition formulations for the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 160 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Student > Bachelor 27 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Researcher 17 10%
Other 10 6%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 26 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 37 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#844,219
of 13,444,601 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,696
of 10,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,819
of 222,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#83
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,444,601 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 222,162 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 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 66% of its contemporaries.