↓ Skip to main content

Interaction Between 2 Nutraceutical Treatments and Host Immune Status in the Pediatric Critical Illness Stress‐Induced Immune Suppression Comparative Effectiveness Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interaction Between 2 Nutraceutical Treatments and Host Immune Status in the Pediatric Critical Illness Stress‐Induced Immune Suppression Comparative Effectiveness Trial
Published in
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, September 2016
DOI 10.1177/0148607116670377
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph A. Carcillo, J. Michael Dean, Richard Holubkov, John Berger, Kathleen L. Meert, Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, Jerry J. Zimmerman, Christopher J. L. Newth, Rick Harrison, Jeri Burr, Douglas F. Willson, Carol Nicholson, Michael J. Bell, Robert A. Berg, Thomas P. Shanley, Sabrina M. Heidemann, Heidi Dalton, Tammara L. Jenkins, Allan Doctor, Angie Webster, Robert F. Tamburro, for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network

Abstract

The pediatric Critical Illness Stress-induced Immune Suppression (CRISIS) trial compared the effectiveness of 2 nutraceutical supplementation strategies and found no difference in the development of nosocomial infection and sepsis in the overall population. We performed an exploratory post hoc analysis of interaction between nutraceutical treatments and host immune status related to the development of nosocomial infection/sepsis. Children from the CRISIS trial were analyzed according to 3 admission immune status categories marked by decreasing immune competence: immune competent without lymphopenia, immune competent with lymphopenia, and previously immunocompromised. The comparative effectiveness of the 2 treatments was analyzed for interaction with immune status category. There were 134 immune-competent children without lymphopenia, 79 previously immune-competent children with lymphopenia, and 27 immunocompromised children who received 1 of the 2 treatments. A significant interaction was found between treatment arms and immune status on the time to development of nosocomial infection and sepsis (P < .05) and on the rate of nosocomial infection and sepsis per 100 patient days (P < .05). Whey protein treatment protected immune-competent patients without lymphopenia from infection and sepsis, both nutraceutical strategies were equivalent in immune-competent patients with lymphopenia, and zinc, selenium, glutamine, and metoclopramide treatment protected immunocompromised patients from infection and sepsis. The science of immune nutrition is more complex than previously thought. Future trial design should consider immune status at the time of trial entry because differential effects of nutraceuticals may be related to this patient characteristic.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 28 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 36 47%
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 24 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,342,896
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
#2,033
of 2,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,644
of 321,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
#42
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 321,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.