| Title |
A prospective observational study of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting in routine practice in a UK cancer centre
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, October 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-007-0343-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Molassiotis, M. P. Saunders, J. Valle, G. Wilson, P. Lorigan, A. Wardley, E. Levine, R. Cowan, J. Loncaster, C. Rittenberg |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study was to assess levels of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in routine practice. The study was an observational prospective evaluation using patient self-reports. One hundred and two patients with cancer in a single cancer centre in UK receiving their first chemotherapy treatment participated in the study and were followed up over four cycles, providing a total of 272 assessments of nausea and vomiting. Data was collected with the use of the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT), which is an eight-item short clinical scale assessing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy. Results indicated that acute vomiting was experienced by 15.7% of the patients in cycle 1 and delayed vomiting by 14.7%, while acute nausea was present in 37.3% of the patients and delayed nausea in 47.1%, increasing over the subsequent cycles. Moderately emetogenic and highly emetogenic chemotherapy had the highest incidence of CINV, whereas patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy showed significant levels of delayed nausea. Acute symptoms were more easily controlled than delayed symptoms. The data suggest that, while vomiting is well controlled, nausea remains a significant problem in practice, and optimal management of CINV is yet to be achieved. Understanding more clearly the biological basis of nausea will assist in managing this complex symptom more effectively in practice. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 35% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 August 2016.
All research outputs
#4,183,042
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#961
of 4,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,046
of 72,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 72,040 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 71% of its contemporaries.