↓ Skip to main content

Is there more than one proctitis syndrome? A revisitation using data from the TROG 96.01 trial

Overview of attention for article published in Radiotherapy & Oncology, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Is there more than one proctitis syndrome? A revisitation using data from the TROG 96.01 trial
Published in
Radiotherapy & Oncology, October 2008
DOI 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.09.019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Capp, Mario Inostroza-Ponta, Dana Bill, Pablo Moscato, Chi Lai, David Christie, David Lamb, Sandra Turner, David Joseph, John Matthews, Chris Atkinson, John North, Michael Poulsen, Nigel A. Spry, Keen-Hun Tai, Chris Wynne, Gillian Duchesne, Allison Steigler, James W. Denham

Abstract

We sought to categorize longitudinal radiation-induced rectal toxicity data obtained from men participating in a randomised controlled trial for locally advanced prostate cancer. Data from self-assessed questionnaires of rectal symptoms and clinician recorded remedial interventions were collected during the TROG 96.01 trial. In this trial, volunteers were randomised to radiation with or without neoadjuvant androgen deprivation. Characterization of longitudinal variations in symptom intensity was achieved using prevalence data. An integrated visualization and clustering approach based on memetic algorithms was used to define the compositions of symptom clusters occurring before, during and after radiation. The utility of the CTC grading system as a means of identifying specific injury profiles was evaluated using concordance analyses. Seven well-defined clusters of rectal symptoms were present prior to treatment, 25 were seen immediately following radiation and 7 at years 1, 2 and 3 following radiation. CTC grading did not concord with the degree of rectal 'distress' and 'problems' at all time points. Concordance was not improved by adding urgency to the CTC scale. The CTC scale has serious shortcomings. A powerful new technique for non-hierarchical clustering may contribute to the categorization of rectal toxicity data for genomic profiling studies and detailed patho-physiological studies.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Unspecified 7 12%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 17 29%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 38%
Unspecified 7 12%
Computer Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 14 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 September 2013.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Radiotherapy & Oncology
#4,098
of 4,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,727
of 103,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiotherapy & Oncology
#14
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 103,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.