↓ Skip to main content

Feeding critically ill patients the right ‘whey’: thinking outside of the box. A personal view

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
Title
Feeding critically ill patients the right ‘whey’: thinking outside of the box. A personal view
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13613-015-0051-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul E Marik

Abstract

Atrophy of skeletal muscle mass is an almost universal problem in survivors of critical illness and is associated with significant short- and long-term morbidity. Contrary to common practice, the provision of protein/amino acids as a continuous infusion significantly limits protein synthesis whereas intermittent feeding maximally stimulates skeletal muscle synthesis. Furthermore, whey-based protein (high in leucine) increases muscle synthesis compared to soy or casein-based protein. In addition to its adverse effects on skeletal muscle synthesis, continuous feeding is unphysiological and has adverse effects on glucose and lipid metabolism and gastrointestinal function. I propose that critically ill patients' be fed intermittently with a whey-based formula and that such an approach is likely to be associated with better glycemic control, less hepatic steatosis and greater preservation of muscle mass. This paper provides the scientific basis for my approach to intermittent feeding of critically ill patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 116 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 12%
Other 12 10%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 33 27%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 32 26%
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 30 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,205,432
of 23,267,128 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#691
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,764
of 267,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,267,128 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. 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 267,701 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 54% of its contemporaries.
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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.