↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, an omega‐3 fatty acid from fish oils) for the treatment of cancer cachexia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, an omega‐3 fatty acid from fish oils) for the treatment of cancer cachexia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004597.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ann Dewey, Chris Baughan, Taraneh P Dean, Bernie Higgins, Ian Johnson

Abstract

Cancer cachexia is a distressing weight loss syndrome commonly seen in advanced cancer patients. It is associated with reduced quality of life and shorter survival time. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) is a long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid found naturally in some fish which has been used to decrease weight loss, promote weight gain and increase survival times in patients affected with cancer cachexia.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 278 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 15%
Researcher 36 13%
Student > Bachelor 35 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 11%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 51 18%
Unknown 76 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Other 27 9%
Unknown 91 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 11 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,302,501
of 25,383,225 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,787
of 12,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,569
of 174,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,225 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,941 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 174,455 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.