↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

High‐carbohydrate, high‐protein, low‐fat versus low‐carbohydrate, high‐protein, high‐fat enteral feeds for burns

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
Title
High‐carbohydrate, high‐protein, low‐fat versus low‐carbohydrate, high‐protein, high‐fat enteral feeds for burns
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006122.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bronwen Masters, Shahram Aarabi, Feroze Sidhwa, Fiona Wood

Abstract

Severe burn injuries increase patients' metabolic needs. Aggressive high-protein enteral feeding is used in the post-burn period to improve recovery and healing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 24%
Student > Bachelor 21 15%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 5%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 36 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 16%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 46 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 April 2020.
All research outputs
#14,972,904
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,938
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,880
of 251,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#160
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 251,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.