| Title |
Development of a core set of outcome measures for OAB treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-017-3481-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caroline Foust-Wright, Stephanie Wissig, Caleb Stowell, Elizabeth Olson, Anita Anderson, Jennifer Anger, Linda Cardozo, Nikki Cotterill, Elizabeth Ann Gormley, Philip Toozs-Hobson, John Heesakkers, Peter Herbison, Kate Moore, Jessica McKinney, Abraham Morse, Samantha Pulliam, George Szonyi, Adrian Wagg, Ian Milsom |
| Abstract |
Standardized measures enable the comparison of outcomes across providers and treatments giving valuable information for improving care quality and efficacy. The aim of this project was to define a minimum standard set of outcome measures and case-mix factors for evaluating the care of patients with overactive bladder (OAB). The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international working group (WG) of leading clinicians and patients to engage in a structured method for developing a core outcome set. Consensus was determined by a modified Delphi process, and discussions were supported by both literature review and patient input. The standard set measures outcomes of care for adults seeking treatment for OAB, excluding residents of long-term care facilities. The WG focused on treatment outcomes identified as most important key outcome domains to patients: symptom burden and bother, physical functioning, emotional health, impact of symptoms and treatment on quality of life, and success of treatment. Demographic information and case-mix factors that may affect these outcomes were also included. The standardized outcome set for evaluating clinical care is appropriate for use by all health providers caring for patients with OAB, regardless of specialty or geographic location, and provides key data for quality improvement activities and research. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 17% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 25% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 December 2017.
All research outputs
#16,199,888
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#1,756
of 2,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,363
of 328,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#20
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,911 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 328,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.