↓ Skip to main content

Nutritional interventions for survivors of childhood cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
303 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
Nutritional interventions for survivors of childhood cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009678.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer E Cohen, Claire E Wakefield, Richard J Cohn

Abstract

Childhood cancer survivors are at a higher risk of developing health conditions such as osteoporosis, and cardiovascular disease than their peers. Health-promoting behaviour, such as consuming a healthy diet, could lessen the impact of these chronic issues, yet the prevalence rate of health-protecting behaviour amongst survivors of childhood cancer is similar to that of the general population. Targeted nutritional interventions may prevent or reduce the incidence of these chronic diseases. The primary aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of a range of nutritional interventions designed to improve the nutritional intake of childhood cancer survivors, as compared to a control group of childhood cancer survivors who did not receive the intervention. Secondary objectives were to assess metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors, measures of weight and body fat distribution, behavioural change, changes in knowledge regarding disease risk and nutritional intake, participants' views of the intervention, measures of health status and quality of life, measures of harm associated with the process or outcomes of the intervention, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention SEARCH METHODS: We searched the electronic databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1945 to April 2013), and Embase/Ovid (from 1980 to April 2013). We ran the search again in August 2015; we have not yet fully assessed these results, but we have identified one ongoing trial. We conducted additional searching of ongoing trial registers - the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number register and the National Institutes of Health register (both screened in the first half of 2013) - reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, and conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology and the International Conference on Long-Term Complications of Treatment of Children and Adolescents for Cancer (both 2008 to 2012). We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of a nutritional intervention with a control group which did not receive the intervention in this review. Participants were childhood cancer survivors of any age, diagnosed with any type of cancer when less than 18 years of age. Participating childhood cancer survivors had completed their treatment with curative intent prior to the intervention. Two review authors independently selected and extracted data from each identified study, using a standardised form. We assessed the validity of each identified study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the GRADE criteria to assess the quality of each trial. Three RCTs were eligible for review. A total of 616 participants were included in the analysis. One study included participants who had been treated for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) (275 participants). Two studies included participants who had all forms of paediatric malignancies (266 and 75 participants). All participants were less than 21 years of age at study entry. The follow-up ranged from one month to 36 months from the initial assessment. All intended outcomes were not evaluated by each included study. All studies looked at different interventions, and so we were unable to pool results. We could not rule out the presence of bias in any of the studies.There was no clear evidence of a difference in calcium intake at one month between those who received the single, half-day, group-based education that focused on bone health, and those who received standard care (mean difference (MD) 111.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -258.97 to 482.17; P = 0.56, low quality evidence). A regression analysis, adjusting for baseline calcium intake and changes in knowledge and self-efficacy, showed a significantly greater calcium intake for the intervention as compared with the control group at the one-month follow-up (beta coefficient 4.92, 95% CI 0.33 to 9.52; P = 0.04). There was statistically significant higher, self-reported milk consumption (MD 0.43, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.79; P = 0.02, low quality evidence), number of days on calcium supplementation (MD 11.42, 95% CI 7.11 to 15.73; P < 0.00001, low quality evidence), and use of any calcium supplementation (risk ratio (RR) 3.35, 95% CI 1.86 to 6.04; P < 0.0001, low quality evidence), with those who received this single, face-to-face, group-based, health behaviour session.There was no clear evidence of a difference in bone density Z-scores measured with a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan at 36 months follow-up (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.16; P = 0.64, moderate quality evidence) between those who received calcium and vitamin D supplementation combined with nutrition education and those who received nutrition education alone. There was also no clear evidence of a difference in bone mineral density between the intervention and the control group at the 12-month (median difference -0.17, P = 0.99) and 24-month follow-up (median difference -0.04, P = 0.54).A single multi-component health behaviour change intervention, focusing on general healthy eating principles, with two telephone follow-ups brought about a 0.17 lower score on the four-point Likert scale of self-reported junk food intake compared with the control group (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.01; P = 0.04, low quality evidence); this result was statistically significant. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in the self-reported use of nutrition as a health protective behaviour (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.14; P = 0.60, low quality evidence). Due to a paucity of studies, and the heterogeneity of the studies included in this review, we are unable to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of nutritional interventions for use with childhood cancer survivors. Although there is low quality evidence for the improvement in health behaviours using health behaviour change interventions, there remains no evidence as to whether this translates into an improvement in dietary intake. There was also no evidence that the studies reduced the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic disorders in childhood cancer survivors, although no evidence of effect is not the same as evidence of no effect. This review highlights the need for further well designed trials to be implemented in this population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 302 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 13%
Student > Bachelor 35 12%
Researcher 26 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 7%
Other 60 20%
Unknown 60 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 16%
Psychology 24 8%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Other 36 12%
Unknown 76 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 12 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,318,833
of 14,123,595 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,803
of 10,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,504
of 262,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#74
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,123,595 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 10,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 262,616 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 173 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 57% of its contemporaries.