| Title |
Outcomes of enteral nutrition for patients with advanced dementia — A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The journal of nutrition, health & aging, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12603-014-0517-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ana Lucia Ribeiro Salomon, M.R. Carvalho Garbi Novaes |
| Abstract |
The present article aims to evaluate the outcomes of enteral nutrition for people with advanced dementia. A systematic review was conducted by searching The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PROQUEST and LILACS for articles that were published from 2008 to 2013. Prospective and retrospective studies involving a control group were searched. Data were independently extracted and assessed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Searched outcomes included survival, clinical and nutritional parameters and complications. In total, nine controlled studies were identified from several parts of the world: Israel, Italy, Japan, the United States and Brazil. Most of the studies did not report any outcome of harm with enteral nutrition use in dementia patients compared with patients without dementia. A study with a higher follow-up period demonstrated improvements in albumin, weight and chronic inflammation parameters. It is not possible to affirm that tube feeding is harmful for dementia patients. Thus, an adequate follow-up by a multidisciplinary team may lower complications associated with this therapy and thus improve survival. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Japan | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 13% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 February 2015.
All research outputs
#7,246,826
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#901
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,108
of 363,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#12
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 363,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 62% of its contemporaries.