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 |
New generation indirect calorimeters for measuring energy expenditure in the critically ill: a rampant or reticent revolution?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1315-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elisabeth De Waele, Patrick M. Honore, Herbert D. Spapen |
| Abstract |
To lower the risk of incorrectly feeding critically ill patients, indirect calorimetry (IC) is proposed as the most ideal method to evaluate energy expenditure and to establish caloric goals. New IC devices are progressively introduced but validation of this new generation remains challenging and arduous. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 2 | 14% |
| Mexico | 2 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 7% |
| Turkey | 1 | 7% |
| Italy | 1 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 36% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 14% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,685,143
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,217
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,499
of 354,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#89
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 354,777 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.