↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Nutritional screening for improving professional practice for patient outcomes in hospital and primary care settings

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
219 Mendeley
Title
Nutritional screening for improving professional practice for patient outcomes in hospital and primary care settings
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005539.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amir-Houshang Omidvari, Yasaman Vali, Susan M Murray, David Wonderling, Arash Rashidian

Abstract

Given the prevalence of under-nutrition and reports of inadequate nutritional management of patients in hospitals and the community, nutritional screening may play a role in reducing the risks of malnutrition. Screening programmes can invoke costs to health systems and patients. It is therefore important to assess the effectiveness of nutritional screening programmes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 212 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 22%
Researcher 31 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 5%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 47 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 20%
Social Sciences 18 8%
Psychology 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 62 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 September 2014.
All research outputs
#6,308,781
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,157
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,130
of 197,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#193
of 290 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 197,657 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 290 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.