↓ Skip to main content

Could enteral nutrition improve the outcome of patients with haematological malignancies undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation? A study protocol for a randomized controlled…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Could enteral nutrition improve the outcome of patients with haematological malignancies undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation? A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (the NEPHA study)
Published in
Trials, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0663-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard Lemal, Aurélie Cabrespine, Bruno Pereira, Cécile Combal, Aurélie Ravinet, Eric Hermet, Jacques-Olivier Bay, Corinne Bouteloup

Abstract

Myeloablative allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is a major procedure usually accompanied by multifactorial malnutrition, prompting the recommendation of systematic artificial nutritional support. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is usually administered during allo-HSCT, essentially for practical reasons. Recently published data suggest that enteral nutrition (EN), given as systematic artificial nutrition support, could decrease grade III-IV graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and infectious events, which are associated with early toxicity after allo-HSCT and then have an impact on early transplant-related mortality (D100 mortality). We report on the NEPHA trial: an open-label, prospective, randomised, multi-centre study on two parallel groups, which has been designed to evaluate the effect of EN compared to PN on early toxicity after an allo-HSCT procedure. Two hundred forty patients treated with allo-HSCT for a haematological malignancy will be randomly assigned to two groups to receive either EN or PN. The primary endpoint will assess the effect of EN on D100 mortality. Secondary endpoints will compare EN and PN with regards to the main haematological, infectious and nutritional outcomes. The impacts of nutritional support should exceed the limits of nutritional status improvement: EN may directly reduce immunological and infectious events, as well as decrease early transplant-related morbidity and mortality. EN and PN need to be prospectively compared in order to assess their impacts and to provide treatment guidelines. (Clinical trials gov number: NCT01955772; registration: July 19th, 2013).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Other 11 16%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 22%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 13 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 September 2015.
All research outputs
#10,858,803
of 19,211,930 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,689
of 4,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,832
of 244,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,211,930 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 244,007 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them