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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Rikkunshito for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Lung Cancer Patients: Results from 2 Prospective, Randomized Phase 2 Trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2017.00972 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Toshiyuki Harada, Toraji Amano, Tomoo Ikari, Kei Takamura, Takahiro Ogi, Toshiaki Fujikane, Yuka Fujita, Kageaki Taima, Hisashi Tanaka, Takaaki Sasaki, Shunsuke Okumura, Shunichi Sugawara, Hiroshi Yokouchi, Noriyuki Yamada, Naoto Morikawa, Hirotoshi Dosaka-Akita, Hiroshi Isobe, Masaharu Nishimura |
| Abstract |
The herbal medicine rikkunshito has the potential to improve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by stimulating ghrelin secretion. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rikkunshito in preventing CINV for patients with lung cancer. Two separate prospective, randomized, phase II parallel design studies were conducted in patients with lung cancer. Fifty-eight and sixty-two patients scheduled to receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), respectively, were randomized 1:1 to receive either standard antiemetic therapy in accordance with international guidelines (S group) or standard antiemetic therapy plus oral rikkunshito (R group). The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR)-that is, no emesis and rescue medication in the first 120 h post-chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included CR in the acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases and safety. Fifty-seven patients (S group, 28; R group, 29) receiving HEC and sixty-two patients (S group, 30; R group, 32) receiving MEC with comparable characteristics were evaluated. The CR rates were similar across the S and R groups for the HEC study in the overall (67.9% vs. 62.1%), acute (96.4% vs. 89.6%), and delayed (67.9% vs. 62.1%) phases, respectively, and for the MEC study in the overall (83.3% vs. 84.4%), acute (100% vs. 100%), and delayed (83.3% vs. 84.4%) phases, respectively. No severe adverse events were observed. Although rikkunshito was well tolerated, it did not demonstrate an additional preventative effect against CINV in lung cancer patients receiving HEC or MEC. Clinical Trial Registry Information: This study is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trial Registry, identification numbers UMIN 000014239 and UMIN 000014240. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
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 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,459,801
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#10,231
of 16,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#378,877
of 442,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#172
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,331 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 442,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 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.