↓ Skip to main content

Safety and efficacy of an olive oil-based triple-chamber bag for parenteral nutrition: a prospective, randomized, multi-center clinical trial in China

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Safety and efficacy of an olive oil-based triple-chamber bag for parenteral nutrition: a prospective, randomized, multi-center clinical trial in China
Published in
Nutrition Journal, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12937-015-0100-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhen-Yi Jia, Jun Yang, Yang Xia, Da-Nian Tong, Gary P. Zaloga, Huan-Long Qin, OliClinomel N4 Study Group

Abstract

Small studies suggest differences in efficacy and safety exist between olive oil-based (OLIVE) and soybean oil-based (SOYBEAN) parenteral nutrition regimens in hospitalized adult patients. This large, prospective, randomized (1:1), open-label, multi-center, noninferiority study compared the delivery, efficacy, and safety of OLIVE (N = 226) with SOYBEAN (N = 232) in Chinese adults (≥18 years) admitted to a surgical service for whom parenteral nutrition was required. Treatments were administered for a minimum of 5 days up to 14 days (to achieve approximately 25 kcal/kg/day, 0.9 g/kg/day amino acids, 0.8 g/kg/day lipid). Impact of treatment on anabolic/catabolic and serum inflammatory, chemistry, and hematological markers, safety, and ease of use were assessed. The primary efficacy variable was serum prealbumin level at Day 5. OLIVE (n = 219) was not inferior to SOYBEAN (n = 224) based on the prealbumin least square geometric mean [LSGM] ratio [95 % CI] 1.12 [1.06, 1.19]; P = 0.002), improved the anabolic/catabolic status of patients enrolled in the study, and was well tolerated compared with SOYBEAN. Improved anabolic status was supported by significantly higher levels of prealbumin at Day 5, albumin at Day 5 and IGF-1 at Day 14 in the OLIVE group, while catabolism was similar between groups. C-reactive protein, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, procalcitonin, and oxidation were similar in each group, but infections were significantly lower with OLIVE (3.6 % versus 10.4 %; P < 0.01). OLIVE provided effective nutrition, was well tolerated, was associated with fewer infections, and conferred greater ease-of-use than SOYBEAN. NTC 01579097 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 18%
Professor 12 14%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Other 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 19 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 36%
Engineering 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 23 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,450,711
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,025
of 1,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,982
of 281,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#21
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,427 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 281,503 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 51% of its contemporaries.
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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.