↓ Skip to main content

Parenteral nutrition at the palliative phase of advanced cancer: the ALIM-K study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Parenteral nutrition at the palliative phase of advanced cancer: the ALIM-K study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-370
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lionel Pazart, Elodie Cretin, Ghislain Grodard, Cecile Cornet, Florence Mathieu-Nicot, Franck Bonnetain, Mariette Mercier, Patrice Cuynet, Carole Bouleuc, Regis Aubry

Abstract

Malnutrition is a common complication in patients at the palliative stage of cancer. During the curative phase of cancer, optimal enteral or parenteral nutrition intake can reduce morbidity and mortality, and improve quality of life. When the main goal of treatment becomes palliative, introduction of artificial nutrition is controversial. Although scientific societies do not recommend the introduction of artificial nutrition in all cases of malnutrition, especially in hypophagic patients if their life expectancy is shorter than 2 months, considerable differences in the use of parenteral nutrition in nonsurgical oncology practice are noted around the world. One explanation is a paucity of well-conducted randomized controlled trials in these situations, and consequently, the risk/benefit ratio of parenteral nutrition and its impact on quality of life in palliative care remains uncertain.Methods/design: The ALIM-K study is a French national multicenter randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of parenteral nutrition, versus an exclusive oral-feeding supply, on the quality of life of malnourished patients who have a functional digestive tube and who are at the palliative phase of advanced cancer with a life expectancy of more than 2 months.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 20 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 July 2015.
All research outputs
#1,332,633
of 5,361,833 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#643
of 1,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,130
of 143,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#29
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,361,833 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 143,875 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 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 66% of its contemporaries.