↓ Skip to main content

Quality of life after early enteral feeding versus standard care for proven or suspected advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Results from a randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in Gynecologic Oncology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Quality of life after early enteral feeding versus standard care for proven or suspected advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Results from a randomised trial
Published in
Gynecologic Oncology, March 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.03.048
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jannah Baker, Monika Janda, Nick Graves, Judy Bauer, Merrilyn Banks, Andrea Garrett, Naven Chetty, Alex J. Crandon, Russell Land, Marcelo Nascimento, James L. Nicklin, Lewis C. Perrin, Andreas Obermair

Abstract

Malnutrition is common in patients with advanced Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (EOC), and is associated with impaired quality of life (QoL), longer hospital stay and higher risk of treatment-related adverse events. This phase III multi-centre randomised clinical trial tested early enteral feeding versus standard care on postoperative QoL. From 2009-2013, 109 patients requiring surgery for suspected advanced EOC, moderately to severely malnourished were enrolled at five sites across Queensland and randomised to intervention (n=53) or control (n=56) groups. Intervention involved intraoperative nasojejunal tube placement and enteral feeding until adequate oral intake could be maintained. Despite being randomised to intervention, 20 patients did not receive feeds (13 did not receive the feeding tube; 7 had it removed early). Control involved postoperative diet as tolerated. QoL was measured at baseline, 6 weeks postoperatively and 30 days after the third cycle of chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure was difference in QoL between intervention and control group. Secondary endpoints included treatment-related adverse event occurrence, length of stay, postoperative services use, and nutritional status. Baseline characteristics were comparable between treatment groups. No significant difference in QoL was found between the groups at any timepoint. There was a trend towards better nutritional status in patients who received the intervention but the differences did not reach statistical significance except for the intention-to-treat analysis at 7 days postoperatively (11.8 intervention vs. 13.8 control, p 0.04). Early enteral feeding did not significantly improve patients' QoL compared to standard of care but may improve nutritional status. Cancer Australia project grant 631524.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 29 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 25 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 32 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,205,295
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Gynecologic Oncology
#1,565
of 4,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,548
of 278,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gynecologic Oncology
#20
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 4,956 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 278,367 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 61% of its contemporaries.