| Title |
Metoclopramide for post‐pyloric placement of naso‐enteral feeding tubes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003353.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cristiane Costa Reis da Silva, Cathy Bennett, Humberto Saconato, Álvaro N Atallah |
| Abstract |
Enteral nutrition by feeding tube is a common and efficient method of providing nutritional support to prevent malnutrition in hospitalised patients who have adequate gastrointestinal function but who are unable to eat. Gastric feeding may be associated with higher rates of food aspiration and pneumonia than post-pyloric naso-enteral tubes. Thus, enteral feeding tubes are placed directly into the small intestine rather than the stomach, and the use of metoclopramide, a prokinetic agent, has been recommended to achieve post-pyloric placement, but its efficacy is controversial. Moreover, metoclopramide may include adverse reactions, which with high doses or prolonged use may be serious and irreversible. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 8% |
| Romania | 1 | 8% |
| Colombia | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 17% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 18% |
| Unknown | 45 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 29% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 49 | 41% |
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 09 July 2019.
All research outputs
#4,641,292
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,072
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,421
of 360,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#152
of 283 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 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 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 360,110 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 283 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.