↓ Skip to main content

Oral protein calorie supplementation for children with chronic disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
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 (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 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 protein calorie supplementation for children with chronic disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001914.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Damian K Francis, Joanne Smith, Tawab Saljuqi, Ruth M Watling

Abstract

Poor growth and nutritional status are common in children with chronic diseases. Oral protein calorie supplements are used to improve nutritional status in these children. These expensive products may be associated with some adverse effects, e.g. the development of inappropriate eating behaviour patterns. This is a new update of a Cochrane review last updated in 2009. To examine evidence that in children with chronic disease, oral protein calorie supplements alter daily nutrient intake, nutritional indices, survival and quality of life and are associated with adverse effects, e.g. diarrhoea, vomiting, reduced appetite, glucose intolerance, bloating and eating behaviour problems. Trials of oral protein calorie supplements in children with chronic diseases were identified through comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Companies marketing these products were also contacted.Most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 24 February 2015. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing oral protein calorie supplements for at least one month to increase calorie intake with existing conventional therapy (including advice on improving nutritional intake from food or no specific intervention) in children with chronic disease. We independently assessed the outcomes: indices of nutrition and growth; anthropometric measures of body composition; calorie and nutrient intake (total from oral protein calorie supplements and food); eating behaviour; compliance; quality of life; specific adverse effects; disease severity scores; and mortality; we also assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. Four studies (187 children) met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were carried out in children with cystic fibrosis and one study included children with paediatric malignant disease. Overall there was a low risk of bias for blinding and incomplete outcome data.Two studies had a high risk of bias for allocation concealment. Few statistical differences were found in the outcomes we assessed between treatment and control groups, except change in total energy intake at six and 12 months, mean difference 304.86 kcal per day (95% confidence interval 5.62 to 604.10) and mean difference 265.70 kcal per day (95% confidence interval 42.94 to 485.46), respectively. However, these were based on the analysis of just 58 children in only one study. Only two chronic diseases were included in these analyses, cystic fibrosis and paediatric malignant disease. No other studies were identified which assessed the effectiveness of oral protein calorie supplements in children with other chronic diseases. Oral protein calorie supplements are widely used to improve the nutritional status of children with a number of chronic diseases. We identified a small number of studies assessing these products in children with cystic fibrosis and paediatric malignant disease, but were unable to draw any conclusions based on the limited data extracted. We recommend a series of large, randomised controlled trials be undertaken investigating the use of these products in children with different chronic diseases. Until further data are available, we suggest these products are used with caution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 157 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 24%
Student > Bachelor 27 17%
Researcher 23 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Unspecified 16 10%
Other 37 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 42%
Unspecified 24 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 8%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Other 25 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 November 2015.
All research outputs
#3,090,585
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,531
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,564
of 233,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#149
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 233,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.