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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
New radiotherapy techniques do not reduce the need for nutrition intervention in patients with head and neck cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ejcn.2015.141 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T Brown, M Banks, B G M Hughes, C Lin, L M Kenny, J D Bauer |
| Abstract |
Since 2007, our institution has used validated guidelines for the insertion of proactive gastrostomy feeding tubes in patients with head and neck cancer. Helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (H-IMRT) delivered by Tomotherapy, is an advanced radiotherapy technique introduced at our centre in 2010. This form of therapy reduces long-term treatment-related toxicity to normal tissues. The aim of this study is to compare weight change and need for tube feeding following H-IMRT (n=53) with patients that would have previously been treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (n=134). Patients with head and neck cancer assessed as high nutritional risk with recommendation for proactive gastrostomy were identified from cohorts from 2007 to 2008 and 2010 to 2011. Retrospective data were collected on clinical factors, weight change from baseline to completion of treatment, incidence of severe weight loss (⩾10%) and tube feeding. Statistical analyses to compare outcomes between the two treatments included χ(2)-test, Fisher's exact and two-sample Wilcoxon tests (P<0.05). The H-IMRT cohort had higher proportions of patients with definitive chemoradiotherapy (P=0.032) and more advanced N stage (P<0.001). Nutrition outcomes were not significantly different between H-IMRT and conformal radiotherapy, respectively: need for proactive gastrostomy (n=49, 92% versus n=115, 86%, P=0.213), median percentage weight change (-7.2% versus -7.3%, P=0.573) and severe weight loss incidence (28% versus 27%, P=0.843). Both groups had median weight loss >5% and high incidences of tube feeding and severe weight loss. Nutrition intervention remains critical in this patient population, despite advances in radiotherapy techniques, and no changes to current management are recommended.European Journal of Clinical Nutrition advance online publication, 26 August 2015; doi:10.1038/ejcn.2015.141. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 22% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 19 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,567,479
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#1,009
of 3,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,339
of 267,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#19
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 267,563 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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.