↓ Skip to main content

Nutritional supplements for patients being treated for active visceral leishmaniasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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 supplements for patients being treated for active visceral leishmaniasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012261.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Estefanía Custodio, Jesús López-Alcalde, Mercè Herrero, Carmen Bouza, Carolina Jimenez, Stefan Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann, Theodora Mouratidou, Teresa López-Cuadrado, Agustin Benito, Jorge Alvar

Abstract

Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a disease caused by a parasite, which can lead to death if untreated. Poor nutritional status hastens the progression of VL infection, and VL worsens malnutrition status. Malnutrition is one of the poor prognostic factors identified for leishmaniasis. However, the effects of nutritional supplementation in people treated for VL are not known. To assess the effects of oral nutritional supplements in people being treated with anti-leishmanial drug therapy for VL. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and two trial registers up to 12 September 2017. We checked conference proceedings and WHO consultative meeting reports, the reference lists of key documents and existing reviews, and contacted experts and nutritional supplement companies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs), and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) of any oral nutritional supplement, compared to no nutritional intervention, placebo, or dietary advice alone, in people being treated for VL. Two review authors independently screened the literature search results for studies that met the inclusion criteria. We had planned for two review authors to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of the included studies. We planned to follow the Cochrane standard methodological procedures for assessing risk of bias and analysing the data. We identified no eligible studies for this review, either completed or ongoing. We found no studies, either completed or ongoing, that assessed the effects of oral nutritional supplements in people with VL who were being treated with anti-leishmanial drug therapy. Thus, we could not draw any conclusions on the impact of these interventions on primary cure of VL, definitive cure of VL, treatment completion, self-reported recovery from illness or resolution of symptoms, weight gain, increased skinfold thickness, other measures of lean or total mass, or growth in children.This absence of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect for nutritional supplements in people under VL treatment. It means that we did not identify research that fulfilled our review inclusion criteria.The effects of oral nutritional supplements in people with VL who are being treated with anti-leishmanial drug therapy have yet to be determined by rigorous experimental studies, such as cluster-randomized trials, that focus on outcomes relevant for patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 24%
Unspecified 12 22%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 31%
Unspecified 17 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 8 15%

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 05 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,632,170
of 13,331,643 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,334
of 10,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,606
of 270,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#104
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,331,643 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 270,729 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.