↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for fatigue and weight loss in adults with advanced progressive illness

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
510 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for fatigue and weight loss in adults with advanced progressive illness
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008427.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cathy Payne, Philip J Wiffen, Suzanne Martin

Abstract

Fatigue and unintentional weight loss are two of the commonest symptoms experienced by people with advanced progressive illness. Appropriate interventions may bring considerable improvements in function and quality of life to seriously ill people and their families, reducing physical, psychological and spiritual distress. To conduct an overview of the evidence available on the efficacy of interventions used in the management of fatigue and/or unintentional weight loss in adults with advanced progressive illness by reviewing the evidence contained within Cochrane reviews. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) for all systematic reviews evaluating any interventions for the management of fatigue and/or unintentional weight loss in adults with advanced progressive illness (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 8). We reviewed titles of interest by abstract. Where the relevance of a review remained unclear we reached a consensus regarding the relevance of the participant group and the outcome measures to the overview. Two overview authors extracted the data independently using a data extraction form. We used the measurement tool AMSTAR (Assessment of Multiple SysTemAtic Reviews) to assess the methodological quality of each systematic review. We included 27 systematic reviews (302 studies with 31,833 participants) in the overview. None of the included systematic reviews reported quantitative data on the efficacy of interventions to manage fatigue or weight loss specific to people with advanced progressive illness. All of the included reviews apart from one were deemed of high methodological quality. For the remaining review we were unable to ascertain the methodological quality of the research strategy as it was described. None of the systematic reviews adequately described whether conflict of interests were present within the included studies. Management of fatigueAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease (ALS/MND) - we identified one systematic review (two studies and 52 participants); the intervention was exercise.Cancer - we identified five systematic reviews (116 studies with 17,342 participants); the pharmacological interventions were eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and any drug therapy for the management of cancer-related fatigue and the non pharmacological interventions were exercise, interventions by breast care nurses and psychosocial interventions.Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) - we identified three systematic reviews (59 studies and 4048 participants); the interventions were self management education programmes, nutritional support and pulmonary rehabilitation.Cystic fibrosis - we identified one systematic review (nine studies and 833 participants); the intervention was physical training.Human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) - we identified two systematic reviews (21 studies and 748 participants); the interventions were progressive resistive exercise and aerobic exercise.Multiple sclerosis (MS) - we identified five systematic reviews (23 studies and 1502 participants); the pharmacological interventions were amantadine and carnitine. The non pharmacological interventions were diet, exercise and occupational therapy.Mixed conditions in advanced stages of illness - we identified one systematic review (five studies and 453 participants); the intervention was medically assisted hydration. Management of weight lossALS/MND - we identified one systematic review but no studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review; the intervention was enteral tube feeding.Cancer - we identified three systematic reviews with a fourth systematic review also containing extractable data on cancer (66 studies and 5601 participants); the pharmacological interventions were megestrol acetate and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (this systematic review is also included in the cancer fatigue section above). The non pharmacological interventions were enteral tube feeding and non invasive interventions for patients with lung cancer.COPD - we identified one systematic review (59 studies and 4048 participants); the intervention was nutritional support. This systematic review is also included in the COPD fatigue section.Cystic fibrosis - we identified two systematic reviews (three studies and 131 participants); the interventions were enteral tube feeding and oral calorie supplements.HIV/AIDS - we identified four systematic reviews (42 studies and 2071 participants); the pharmacological intervention was anabolic steroids. The non pharmacological interventions were nutritional interventions, progressive resistive exercise and aerobic exercise. Both of the systematic reviews on exercise interventions were also included in the HIV/AIDS fatigue section.MS - we found no systematic reviews which considered interventions to manage unintentional weight loss for people with a clinical diagnosis of multiple sclerosis at any stage of illness.Mixed conditions in advanced stages of illness - we identified two systematic reviews (32 studies and 4826 participants); the interventions were megestrol acetate and medically assisted nutrition. There is a lack of robust evidence for interventions to manage fatigue and/or unintentional weight loss in the advanced stage of progressive illnesses such as advanced cancer, heart failure, lung failure, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, Parkinson's disease, dementia and AIDS. The evidence contained within this overview provides some insight into interventions which may prove of benefit within this population such as exercise, some pharmacological treatments and support for self management.Researchers could improve the methodological quality of future studies by blinding of outcome assessors. Adopting uniform reporting mechanisms for fatigue and weight loss outcome measures would also allow the opportunity for meta-analysis of small studies.Researchers could also improve the applicability of recommendations for interventions to manage fatigue and unintentional weight loss in advanced progressive illness by including subgroup analysis of this population within systematic reviews of applicable interventions.More research is required to ascertain the best interventions to manage fatigue and/or weight loss in advanced illness. There is a need for standardised reporting of these symptoms and agreement amongst researchers of the minimum duration of studies and minimum percentage change in symptom experience that proves the benefits of an intervention. There are, however, challenges in providing meaningful outcome measurements against a background of deteriorating health through disease progression. Interventions to manage these symptoms must also be mindful of the impact on quality of life and should be focused on patient-orientated rather than purely disease-orientated experiences for patients. Systematic reviews and primary intervention studies should include the impact of the interventions on standardised validated quality of life measures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 510 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 507 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 89 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 11%
Researcher 53 10%
Student > Bachelor 53 10%
Student > Postgraduate 31 6%
Other 96 19%
Unknown 130 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 132 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 101 20%
Psychology 30 6%
Social Sciences 17 3%
Sports and Recreations 16 3%
Other 64 13%
Unknown 150 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 November 2020.
All research outputs
#3,155,481
of 17,606,952 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,836
of 11,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,488
of 274,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#154
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,606,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 274,006 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.