↓ Skip to main content

Enteral tube feeding for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Enteral tube feeding for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001198.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison Morton, Susan Wolfe

Abstract

Enteral tube feeding is routinely used in many cystic fibrosis centres when oral dietary and supplement intake has failed to achieve an adequate nutritional status. The use of this method of feeding is assessed on an individual basis taking into consideration the patients age and clinical status. To examine the evidence that in people with cystic fibrosis, supplemental enteral tube feeding improves nutritional status, respiratory function, and quality of life without significant adverse effects. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also contacted the companies that market enteral feeds and reviewed their databases.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 13 February 2015.Date of the most recent hand search of PubMed and conference abstract books: 13 February 2015. All randomised controlled trials comparing supplemental enteral tube feeding for one month or longer with no specific intervention in people with cystic fibrosis. The searches identified 38 trials; however, none were eligible for inclusion in this review. There are no trials included in this review. Supplemental enteral tube feeding is widely used throughout the world to improve nutritional status in people with cystic fibrosis. The methods mostly used, nasogastric or gastrostomy feeding, are expensive and may have a negative effect on self-esteem and body image. Reported use of enteral tube feeding suggests that it results in nutritional and respiratory improvement; but, efficacy has not been fully assessed by randomised controlled trials. It is acknowledged, however, that performing a randomised controlled trial would be difficult due to the ethics of withholding an intervention in a group of patients whose nutritional status necessitates it.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Spain 1 1%
India 1 1%
Unknown 80 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Other 9 11%
Other 25 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 45%
Unspecified 16 19%
Social Sciences 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 12 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#10,088,719
of 12,612,419 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,434
of 10,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,664
of 239,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#250
of 267 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,612,419 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 239,644 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 267 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.