↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
321 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Enteral versus parenteral nutrition for acute pancreatitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002837.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammed Al‐Omran, Zaina H AlBalawi, Mariam F Tashkandi, Lubna A Al‐Ansary

Abstract

Acute pancreatitis creates a catabolic stress state promoting a systemic inflammatory response and nutritional deterioration. Adequate supply of nutrients plays an important role in recovery. Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) has been standard practice for providing exogenous nutrients to patients with severe acute pancreatitis. However, recent data suggest that enteral nutrition (EN) is not only feasible, but safer and more effective.Therefore, we sought to update our systematic review to re-evaluate the level of evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 65%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 11 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,909,121
of 25,385,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,140
of 12,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,672
of 173,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 173,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.