| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Egypt | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 254 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 | 247 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 50 | 20% |
| Researcher | 32 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 41 | 16% |
| Unknown | 69 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 47 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 7% |
| Psychology | 10 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 7% |
| Unknown | 85 | 33% |
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
#7,216,085
of 25,655,374 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,791
of 13,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,161
of 210,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#199
of 299 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,655,374 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. 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 210,716 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 299 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.