↓ Skip to main content

Multidrug infusions in a Swiss palliative care unit: assessment of frequent combinations in terms of clinical effectiveness, compatibility, and stability

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Multidrug infusions in a Swiss palliative care unit: assessment of frequent combinations in terms of clinical effectiveness, compatibility, and stability
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00520-016-3357-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tanja Fusi-Schmidhauser, Dario Caronzolo, Claudia Gamondi

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to trace, monitor, and assess for clinical effectiveness, visual compatibility, and stability of commonly used combinations of drugs for patients hospitalized in a Swiss palliative care unit, over a 12-month period. In this longitudinal analysis, commonly used multidrug combinations were monitored with a duly created data collection sheet for healthcare professionals. Assessment of visual changes of the mixtures and the evaluation of major changes in the overall symptom control over time were recorded. The clinical changes were classified according to reasonable correlation to the modality of drug administration and not to clinical evolution of the underlying disease. Over a 12-month period, a total of 48 multidrug infusions were recorded and monitored. The infusions were composed of two, three, four, or five active principles. Infusions were given over a 24-h period, mainly intravenously, either through an implantable venous access port or a peripheral venous access. Main diluent was normal saline solution. Commonly used drug combinations included morphine and haloperidol, morphine, haloperidol and octreotide, morphine, haloperidol, octreotide, and chlorpromazine. No precipitations were observed during the study. Patients maintained a clinical stability and no salient changes in symptom control were attributed to inefficacy of the multidrug infusions. The use of multidrug infusions for parenteral administration appears to confirm an adequate visual compatibility and stability, while maintaining effectiveness in terms of overall symptom control.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 24%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 12%
Unspecified 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
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 28 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,811,358
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3,460
of 4,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,980
of 364,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#47
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 364,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.