↓ Skip to main content

Clinical trials in palliative care: a systematic review of their methodological characteristics and of the quality of their reporting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, January 2017
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
34 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Clinical trials in palliative care: a systematic review of their methodological characteristics and of the quality of their reporting
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12904-016-0181-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raquel Bouça-Machado, Madalena Rosário, Joana Alarcão, Leonor Correia-Guedes, Daisy Abreu, Joaquim J. Ferreira

Abstract

Over the past decades there has been a significant increase in the number of published clinical trials in palliative care. However, empirical evidence suggests that there are methodological problems in the design and conduct of studies, which raises questions about the validity and generalisability of the results and of the strength of the available evidence. We sought to evaluate the methodological characteristics and assess the quality of reporting of clinical trials in palliative care. We performed a systematic review of published clinical trials assessing therapeutic interventions in palliative care. Trials were identified using MEDLINE (from its inception to February 2015). We assessed methodological characteristics and describe the quality of reporting using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We retrieved 107 studies. The most common medical field studied was oncology, and 43.9% of trials evaluated pharmacological interventions. Symptom control and physical dimensions (e.g. intervention on pain, breathlessness, nausea) were the palliative care-specific issues most studied. We found under-reporting of key information in particular on random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding. While the number of clinical trials in palliative care has increased over time, methodological quality remains suboptimal. This compromises the quality of studies. Therefore, a greater effort is needed to enable the appropriate performance of future studies and increase the robustness of evidence-based medicine in this important field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Other 11 10%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 36 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 15%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 43 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,458,436
of 25,208,845 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#103
of 1,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,514
of 430,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,208,845 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 1,469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 430,439 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.