| Title |
Reporting of health-related quality of life in randomized controlled trials involving palliative systemic therapy for esophagogastric cancer: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Gastric Cancer, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10120-018-0792-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emil ter Veer, Jessy Joy van Kleef, Mirjam A. G. Sprangers, Nadia Haj Mohammad, Martijn G. H. van Oijen, Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven |
| Abstract |
Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessments are increasingly incorporated into oncological randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The quality of HRQoL reporting in RCTs concerning palliative systemic treatment for advanced esophagogastric cancer is currently unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to investigate the quality of HRQoL reporting over time. PubMed, CENTRAL and EMBASE were searched for RCTs concerning systemic treatment for advanced esophagogastric cancer up to February 2017. The Minimum Standard Checklist for Evaluating HRQoL Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials was used to rate the quality of HRQoL reporting. Univariate and multivariate generalized linear regression analysis was used to investigate factors affecting the quality of reporting over time. In total, 37 original RCTs (N = 10,887 patients) were included. The quality of reporting was classified as 'very limited' in 4 studies (11%), 'limited' in 24 studies (65%), and 'probably robust' in 9 studies (24%). HRQoL reporting did not improve over time, and it did not improve following the publication of the CONSORT-PRO statement in 2013. The publication of HRQoL findings in a separate article and second-line treatment were associated with better reporting. HRQoL reporting in RCTs concerning palliative systemic therapy for advanced esophagogastric cancer is limited and has not improved over time. This systematic review provides specific recommendations for authors to improve HRQoL reporting: formulate hypotheses a priori, clearly describe instrument administration, and handle missing data and interpret findings appropriately. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 19% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 14% |
| Psychology | 4 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 20 | 34% |
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 26 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,156,937
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from Gastric Cancer
#302
of 607 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,213
of 443,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gastric Cancer
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 607 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 443,140 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.