↓ Skip to main content

Glutamine supplementation

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
Title
Glutamine supplementation
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2011
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-1-25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Wernerman

Abstract

Intravenous glutamine supplementation is standard care when parenteral nutrition is given for critical illness. There are data of a reduced mortality when glutamine supplementation is given. In addition, standard commercial products for parenteral nutrition do not contain any glutamine due to glutamine instability in aqueous solutions. For the majority of critical ill patients who are fed enterally, the available evidence is insufficient to recommend glutamine supplementation. Standard formulation of enteral nutrition contains some glutamine: 2-4 g/L. However, this dose is insufficient to normalize glutamine plasma concentration.Plasma concentration of glutamine is low in many patients with critical illness and a low level is an independent risk factor for mortality. A low plasma glutamine concentration is the best indicator of glutamine depletion. Data are emerging about how the endogenous production of glutamine is regulated. We know that skeletal muscle is the major producer of glutamine and that a part of the profound depletion of skeletal muscle seen in critical illness is a reflection of the need to produce glutamine.Glutamine is utilized in rapidly dividing cells in the splanchnic area. Quantitatively most glutamine is oxidized, but the availability of glutamine in surplus is important for the de novo synthesis of nucleotides and necessary for cell division and protein synthesis. More knowledge about the regulation of the endogenous production of glutamine is needed to outline better guidelines for glutamine supplementation in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
France 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 86 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 21%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Other 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Professor 6 7%
Other 24 26%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Sports and Recreations 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 14 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2020.
All research outputs
#14,137,641
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#744
of 1,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,643
of 119,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 119,107 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.