↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of integrative clinical trials for supportive care in pediatric oncology: a report from the International Society of Pediatric Oncology, T

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
Title
A systematic review of integrative clinical trials for supportive care in pediatric oncology: a report from the International Society of Pediatric Oncology, T&CM collaborative
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00520-017-3908-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea L. Radossi, Katherine Taromina, Stacey Marjerrison, Caroline J. Diorio, Raquel Similio, Festus Njuguna, Glenn M. Afungchwi, Elena J. Ladas

Abstract

Traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) use in children with cancer is well established among high-income, upper middle-income, low-middle-income, and low-income countries (HIC, UMIC, LMIC, LIC, respectively). In HIC, a developing body of evidence exists for several T&CM therapies; however, evidence in other income settings is less well described despite a significantly higher use when compared to reports from HIC. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for T&CM for a variety of supportive care indications among children with cancer. We performed a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines of randomized, controlled clinical trials from inception through September 2016. Our eligibility criteria were limited to T&CM studies performed in children and adolescents undergoing treatment for a pediatric malignancy. Of 6342 studies identified, 44 met inclusion criteria. Two clinical trials reported on acupuncture, 1 reported on aromatherapy, 9 evaluated massage therapy, and 32 reported on dietary supplements. Twenty-two studies were performed in HIC, 15 in UMIC, and 7 in LMIC. T&CM therapies were most commonly investigated for the prevention or management of mucositis, weight loss, and febrile neutropenia. Encouraging results were reported for select interventions; however, the majority of studies were classified as poor to fair quality. Our search revealed numerous clinical studies investigating the use of T&CM for supportive care purposes in pediatric oncology in HIC, UMIC, and LMIC. Although limited, these results could inform supportive care resource allocation and indicate where T&CM may serve to fill gaps where access to care may be limited.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Master 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 53 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 20%
Psychology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 63 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 12 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,884,980
of 24,282,284 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#851
of 4,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,122
of 329,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#29
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,282,284 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 329,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 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.