| Title |
A J-shaped relationship between caloric intake and survival in critically ill patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-015-0079-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Isabel Carolina Reis Crosara, Christian Mélot, Jean-Charles Preiser |
| Abstract |
There is much controversy around the optimal caloric intake in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, based on the diverging results of prospective studies. Therefore, we assessed the presence of an association between caloric intake and outcome in a large cohort included in the Glucontrol study. Patients (n = 1004) were divided into four quartiles (q1-q4) according to the daily caloric intake (n = 251/quartile). ICU, hospital and 28-day mortality and the length of stay (LOS) in ICU and in the hospital were compared between each quartile, before and after adjustment in case of differences in baseline characteristics. Caloric intake averaged 0.5 ± 0.6 (q1), 3.0 ± 0.7 (q2), 13.4 ± 5.1 (q3) and 32.4 ± 8.5 (q4) kcal/kg/day (p < 0.001 between quartiles). Comparisons among quartiles revealed that ICU, hospital and 28-day mortality were lower in q2 than in the other quartiles. ICU and hospital LOS were lower in q1 and q2. After adjustment for age, type of admission and severity scores, hospital mortality was lower in q2 than in the other quartiles, and LOS was lower in q1and q2 than in q3-q4. In this large and heterogeneous cohort of ICU short stayers, a J-shaped relationship between the amount of calories provided and outcome was found. These hypothesis generating findings are consistent with the concept of improved clinical outcome by early energy restriction. Trial registration#: ClinicalTrials.gov# NCT00107601, EUDRA-CT Number: 200400391440. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 States | 2 | 40% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 66% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,714,381
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#665
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,342
of 286,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#9
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 286,662 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.