↓ Skip to main content

When timing and dose of nutrition support were examined, the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) score did not differentiate high-risk patients who would derive the most benefit from…

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, October 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
When timing and dose of nutrition support were examined, the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) score did not differentiate high-risk patients who would derive the most benefit from nutrition support: a prospective cohort study
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, October 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13613-018-0443-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles Chin Han Lew, Gabriel Jun Yung Wong, Ka Po Cheung, Robert J. L. Fraser, Ai Ping Chua, Mary Foong Fong Chong, Michelle Miller

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 39%
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 08 July 2019.
All research outputs
#15,030,198
of 23,122,481 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#795
of 1,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,976
of 349,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#20
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,122,481 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 349,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.