↓ Skip to main content

Palliative enteral feeding for patients with malignant esophageal obstruction: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Palliative enteral feeding for patients with malignant esophageal obstruction: a retrospective study
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12904-015-0056-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

CW. Yang, HH. Lin, TY. Hsieh, WK. Chang

Abstract

Malignant esophageal obstruction leads to dysphagia, deterioration in quality of life, and malnutrition. Traditional bedside nasogastric (NG) tube placement is very difficult under these circumstances. However, endoscopically assisted NG tube placement under fluoroscopic guidance could be an alternative option for establishing palliative enteral nutrition. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of enteral tube feeding and esophageal stenting for patients with malignant esophageal obstruction and a short life expectancy. Thirty-one patients were divided into 3 groups according to their treatment modality: NG tube (n = 12), esophageal stent group (n = 10), and supportive care with nil per os (NPO) (n = 9). Enteral nutrition, clinical outcomes, length of hospital stay, and median survival were evaluated. There were no significant baseline differences among the groups, except in age. The tube and stent groups had significantly higher enteral calorie intake (p = 0.01), higher serum albumin (p < 0.01), shorter hospital stay (p = 0.01), and longer median survival (p < 0.01) than the NPO group. The incidence of dislodgement in the tube group was significantly higher than in the stent group (58 % vs. 20 %, respectively; p = 0.01). However, stenting costs more than NG tube placement. Palliative enteral feeding by NG tube is safe, inexpensive, and has a low complication rate. Endoscopically assisted NG tube placement under fluoroscopic guidance could be a feasible palliative option for malignant esophageal obstruction for patients who have a short life expectancy.

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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 27%
Student > Bachelor 11 18%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Professor 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 22%
Psychology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 12 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 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#5,428,524
of 7,520,778 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#271
of 329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,200
of 242,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#20
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,520,778 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 242,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.