↓ Skip to main content

A randomised feasibility study of EPA and Cox-2 inhibitor (Celebrex) versus EPA, Cox-2 inhibitor (Celebrex), Resistance Training followed by ingestion of essential amino acids high in leucine in…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
A randomised feasibility study of EPA and Cox-2 inhibitor (Celebrex) versus EPA, Cox-2 inhibitor (Celebrex), Resistance Training followed by ingestion of essential amino acids high in leucine in NSCLC cachectic patients - ACCeRT Study
Published in
BMC Cancer, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-11-493
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elaine S Rogers, Roderick D MacLeod, Joanna Stewart, Stephen P Bird, Justin WL Keogh

Abstract

Cancer cachexia is a syndrome of progressive weight loss. Non-small cell lung cancer patients experience a high incidence of cachexia of 61%. Research into methods to combat cancer cachexia in various tumour sites has recently progressed to the combination of agents.The combination of the anti-cachectic agent Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and the cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor celecoxib has been tested in a small study with some benefit. The use of progressive resistance training (PRT) followed by the oral ingestion of essential amino acids (EAA), have shown to be anabolic on skeletal muscle and acceptable in older adults and other cancer groups.The aim of this feasibility study is to evaluate whether a multi-targeted approach encompassing a resistance training and nutritional supplementation element is acceptable for lung cancer patients experiencing cancer cachexia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 128 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 20%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 18 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 11%
Sports and Recreations 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 27 20%

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 02 March 2012.
All research outputs
#9,508,467
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,701
of 4,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,725
of 216,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#159
of 277 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 216,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 277 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.