↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 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 9 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 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 180 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 23%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 26 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 21%
Social Sciences 18 10%
Psychology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 38 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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
#2,701,951
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,793
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,628
of 149,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#61
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 149,373 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 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 55% of its contemporaries.