↓ Skip to main content

High-carbohydrate, high-protein, low-fat versus low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat enteral feeds for burns

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
High-carbohydrate, high-protein, low-fat versus low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat enteral feeds for burns
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006122.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bronwen Masters, Shahram Aarabi, Feroze Sidhwa, Fiona Wood

Abstract

Severe burn injuries increase patients' metabolic needs. Aggressive high-protein enteral feeding is used in the post-burn period to improve recovery and healing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 33%
Student > Bachelor 16 19%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 5 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 17%
Psychology 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 12 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,557,386
of 14,574,942 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,256
of 11,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,134
of 211,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#357
of 517 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,574,942 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,017 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 211,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 517 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.