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 |
Enteral glutamine supplementation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-1002-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arthur R. H. van Zanten, Rupinder Dhaliwal, Dominique Garrel, Daren K. Heyland |
| Abstract |
Glutamine (GLN) has been suggested to have a beneficial influence on outcomes of critically ill patients. However, recent large-scale trials have suggested harm associated with GLN supplementation. Recently, systematic reviews on the use of parenteral GLN have been published; however, less information is available on the role of enteral GLN. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to study the effects of enteral GLN supplementation in patients with critical illness. We identified randomized controlled trials conducted from 1980 to 2014 with enterally administered GLN in adult critically ill patients. Studies of parenteral GLN only or combined enteral-parenteral GLN were excluded. The methodological quality of studies was scored, and trial data were statistically combined. We examined a priori the treatment effects in subgroups of trials of burn and trauma patients. A total of 11 studies involving 1079 adult critically ill patients and enteral GLN supplementation were identified. Enteral GLN supplementation was not associated with a reduction of hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.94, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.36; p =0.74), infectious complications (RR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.79-1.10; p =0.39) or stay in the intensive care unit (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.36 days, 95 % CI -5.51 to 2.78; p =0.52). However, there was a significant reduction in hospital stay (WMD 4.73 days, 95 % CI -8.53 to -0.90; p =0.02). In the subset of studies of patients with burns, enteral GLN supplementation was associated with significant reductions in hospital mortality (RR 0.19, 95 % 0.06-0.67; p =0.010) and hospital stay (WMD -9.16, 95 % CI -15.06 to -3.26; p =0.002). There was no effect in trauma patients. Enteral GLN supplementation does not confer significant clinical benefit in critically ill patients, with the exception of reduced hospital stay. There may be a significant benefit in patients with burns, but data are sparse and larger randomized trials are warranted to confirm this effect. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 11% |
| United States | 4 | 7% |
| Spain | 4 | 7% |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | 3% |
| Peru | 2 | 3% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 2% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 37 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 23% |
| Scientists | 5 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 205 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 35 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 12% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Researcher | 22 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 9% |
| Other | 36 | 17% |
| Unknown | 50 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 94 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 13 | 6% |
| Unknown | 58 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 15 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,156,007
of 25,529,543 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#945
of 6,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,152
of 396,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#55
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,529,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 396,354 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.