↓ Skip to main content

An investigation into the nutritional status of patients receiving an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol versus standard care following Oesophagectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
An investigation into the nutritional status of patients receiving an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol versus standard care following Oesophagectomy
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00520-017-4038-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katie Benton, Iain Thomson, Elisabeth Isenring, B. Mark Smithers, Ekta Agarwal

Abstract

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been effectively expanded to various surgical specialities including oesophagectomy. Despite nutrition being a key component, actual nutrition outcomes and specific guidelines are lacking. This cohort comparison study aims to compare nutritional status and adherence during implementation of a standardised post-operative nutritional support protocol, as part of ERAS, compared to those who received usual care. Two groups of patients undergoing resection of oesophageal cancer were studied. Group 1 (n = 17) underwent oesophagectomy between Oct 2014 and Nov 2016 during implementation of an ERAS protocol. Patients in group 2 (n = 16) underwent oesophagectomy between Jan 2011 and Dec 2012 prior to the implementation of ERAS. Demographic, nutritional status, dietary intake and adherence data were collected. Ordinal data was analysed using independent t tests, and categorical data using chi-square tests. There was no significant difference in nutrition status, dietary intake or length of stay following implementation of an ERAS protocol. Malnutrition remained prevalent in both groups at day 42 post surgery (n = 10, 83% usual care; and n = 9, 60% ERAS). A significant difference was demonstrated in adherence with earlier initiation of oral free fluids (p <0.008), transition to soft diet (p <0.004) and continuation of jejunostomy feeds on discharge (p <0.000) for the ERAS group. A standardised post-operative nutrition protocol, within an ERAS framework, results in earlier transition to oral intake; however, malnutrition remains prevalent post surgery. Further large-scale studies are warranted to examine individualised decision-making regarding nutrition support within an ERAS protocol.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 32%
Student > Master 5 26%
Lecturer 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 9 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%

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 26 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,792,142
of 12,419,722 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,570
of 2,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,375
of 339,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#65
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,419,722 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. 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 339,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.