| Title |
Nutrition intervention approaches to reduce malnutrition in oncology patients: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-015-2958-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jia Li Charmaine Lee, Lai Peng Leong, Su Lin Lim |
| Abstract |
Malnutrition is a very common problem in oncology patients and is associated with many negative consequences including poorer prognosis, quality of life and survival. However, malnutrition in oncology patients is often overlooked although there is growing evidence showing that it can be prevented or reduced through nutrition intervention. This paper aims to provide an updated review on the effectiveness of different nutrition intervention approaches on nutrition status outcomes in oncology patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1994 and 2014 which examined the effects of nutrition intervention approaches-in particular, nutrition counselling (NC), oral nutrition supplements (ONS) and tube feeding (TF)-on nutrition status outcomes of oncology patients were identified and reviewed. Thirteen papers from 11 RCTs with a total of 1077 participants were included. The intervention approaches included NC (four studies), NC + ONS (five studies), ONS (three studies) and TF (three studies). The various results suggest that NC with or without ONS was associated with consistent improvements in several nutrition status outcomes. On the other hand, ONS and TF were associated with inconsistent improvements in few aspects of nutrition status outcomes. The referral of oncology patients for NC is recommended given the strong evidence of its beneficial effects on the prevention and reduction of malnutrition. Other forms of nutrition support including ONS and TF may then be included if deemed suitable and necessary for the individual. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 21% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| Japan | 2 | 8% |
| Vietnam | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 58% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 38% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Croatia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 194 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 10% |
| Researcher | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 17% |
| Unknown | 51 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 45 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 22 | 11% |
| Unknown | 59 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 04 October 2016.
All research outputs
#2,175,606
of 23,743,910 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#354
of 4,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,837
of 276,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#9
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,743,910 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 276,055 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 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 91% of its contemporaries.