↓ Skip to main content

Oral calorie supplements for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 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
Oral calorie supplements for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000406.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosalind L Smyth, Oli Rayner

Abstract

Poor nutrition occurs frequently in people with cystic fibrosis and is associated with other adverse outcomes. Oral calorie supplements are used to increase total daily calorie intake and improve weight gain. However, they are expensive and there are concerns they may reduce the amount of food eaten and not improve overall energy intake. This is an update of a previously published review. To establish whether in people with cystic fibrosis, oral calorie supplements: increase daily calorie intake; and improve overall nutritional intake, nutritional indices, lung function, survival and quality of life. To assess adverse effects associated with using these supplements. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register comprising references from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We contacted companies marketing oral calorie supplements.Last search: 18 October 2016. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing use of oral calorie supplements for at least one month to increase calorie intake with no specific intervention or additional nutritional advice in people with cystic fibrosis. We independently selected the included trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted the authors of included trials and obtained additional information for two trials. We identified 21 trials and included three, reporting results from 131 participants lasting between three months and one year. Two trials compared supplements to additional nutritional advice and one to no intervention. Two of the included trials recruited only children. In one trial the risk of bias was low across all domains, in a second trial the risk of bias was largely unclear and in the third mainly low. Blinding of participants was unclear in two of the trials. Also, in one trial the clinical condition of groups appeared to be unevenly balanced at baseline and in another trial there were concerns surrounding allocation concealment. There were no significant differences between people receiving supplements or dietary advice alone for change in weight, height, body mass index, z score or other indices of nutrition or growth. Changes in weight (kg) at three, six and 12 months respectively were: mean difference (MD) 0.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.72); MD 0.47 (95% CI -0.07 to 1.02 ); and MD 0.16 (-0.68 to 1.00). Total calorie intake was greater in people taking supplements at 12 months, MD 265.70 (95% CI 42.94 to 488.46). There were no significant differences between the groups for anthropometric measures of body composition, lung function, gastro-intestinal adverse effects or activity levels. Moderate quality evidence exists for the outcomes of changes in weight and height and low quality evidence exists for the outcomes of change in total calories, total fat and total protein intake as results are applicable only to children between the ages of 2 and 15 years and many post-treatment diet diaries were not returned. Evidence for the rate of adverse events in the treatment groups was extremely limited and judged to be of very low quality AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral calorie supplements do not confer any additional benefit in the nutritional management of moderately malnourished children with cystic fibrosis over and above the use of dietary advice and monitoring alone. While nutritional supplements may be used, they should not be regarded as essential. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the role of short-term oral protein energy supplements in people with cystic fibrosis and acute weight loss and also for the long-term nutritional management of adults with cystic fibrosis or advanced lung disease, or both.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 67%
Researcher 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 33%
Social Sciences 1 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,428,064
of 12,510,237 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,569
of 8,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,008
of 259,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#85
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,510,237 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 8,861 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 259,301 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 172 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 50% of its contemporaries.