| Title |
Cancer chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea and constipation: mechanisms of damage and prevention strategies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, April 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-006-0040-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel J. Gibson, Dorothy M. K. Keefe |
| Abstract |
Diarrhoea and constipation are common toxicities of chemotherapy, and both are poorly understood. They are manifestations of alimentary mucositis, a condition which affects the entire gastrointestinal tract. The absolute percentage of patients that have diarrhoea or constipation as a result of their treatment has yet to be fully defined, although general estimates place 10% of patients with advanced cancer as being afflicted. Although there has been some major progress in recent years with understanding the mechanisms of oral and small intestinal mucositis, diarrhoea and constipation have received very little attention. Although diarrhoea is a well-recognised side-effect of both chemotherapy and radiotherapy, very little research has been conducted on the mechanisms behind diarrhoea or its treatment. Much of the information in the published literature is based on clinical observations with very little basic science existing. Constipation is not as well recognised and very little is known about its mechanisms. This review will examine in detail the potentially complex pathogenesis of post-chemotherapy diarrhoea in both animal models and the clinical setting. Furthermore, it will explore what is known about chemotherapy-induced constipation. It will then outline an evidence-based pathway for the investigation and treatment of post-chemotherapy diarrhoea and constipation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 174 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | 1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 168 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 35 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 11% |
| Researcher | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 30 | 17% |
| Unknown | 44 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 26% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 16 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 14% |
| Unknown | 52 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,638,696
of 25,067,172 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#817
of 5,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,386
of 78,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,067,172 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 78,178 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.