↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Refeeding syndrome in the frail elderly population: prevention, diagnosis and management

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
Title
Refeeding syndrome in the frail elderly population: prevention, diagnosis and management
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, July 2018
DOI 10.2147/ceg.s136429
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emilie Aubry, Natalie Friedli, Philipp Schuetz, Zeno Stanga

Abstract

Aging is linked to physiological and pathophysiological changes. In this context, elderly patients often are frail, which strongly correlates with negative health outcomes and disability. Elderly patients are often malnourished, which again is an independent risk factor for both frailty and adverse clinical outcomes. Malnutrition and resulting frailty can be prevented by adequate nutritional interventions. Yet, use of nutritional therapy can also have negative consequences, including a potentially life-threatening metabolic alteration called refeeding syndrome (RFS) in high-risk patients. RFS is characterized by severe electrolyte shifts (mainly hypophosphatemia, hypomagnesemia and hypokalemia), vitamin deficiency (mainly thiamine), fluid overload and salt retention leading to organ dysfunction and cardiac arrhythmias. Although the awareness of malnutrition among elderly people is well established, the risk of RFS is often neglected, especially in the frail elderly population. This partly relates to the unspecific clinical presentation and laboratory changes in the geriatric population. The aim of this review is to summarize recently published recommendations for the management of RFS based on current evidence from clinical studies adapted with a focus on elderly patients.

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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 158 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 16%
Student > Bachelor 23 15%
Other 18 11%
Researcher 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 48 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 54 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 July 2023.
All research outputs
#16,389,633
of 24,145,400 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#185
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,159
of 332,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,145,400 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 332,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.