↓ Skip to main content

Prospective randomised controlled trial of written supplement to verbal communication of results to patients at the time of flexible cystoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
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
Prospective randomised controlled trial of written supplement to verbal communication of results to patients at the time of flexible cystoscopy
Published in
World Journal of Urology, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00345-018-2233-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank D’Arcy, Chew Lin Yip, Kiran Manya, Paul McGivern, Rustom P. Manecksha, Damien Bolton, Shomik Sengupta

Abstract

This trial assessed if written information on procedural findings and subsequent treatment improved understanding and reduced anxiety among patients undergoing day case flexible cystoscopy (FC). Participants completed pre- and post-procedure questionnaires self-rating anxiety and feeling well informed on 5-point Likert scales. Supplemental written information was provided after FC to half the patients on a standardized template, according to randomized allocation. Comparisons between the groups were undertaken using the Wilcoxon test. Two hundred patients were recruited, with 171 evaluable questionnaires (83 from written group). The distribution of age, sex and prior FC, as well as the pre-procedure self-assessment of anxiety and understanding, was similar between the two groups. Patients receiving written information reported feeling better informed, with median (range) Likert score of 5 (4-5) compared to 4 (1-5) out of 5 (p < 0.0001) and less anxious (score 1 [1-4] compared to 2 [1-5] out of 5, p < 0.005), although all except four patients had an accurate understanding of the information provided (p = NS). Written information at the time of FC leads to patients feeling better informed and less anxious, although verbal information alone appears to lead to an adequate understanding. ACTRN12616000288426.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 14%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Sports and Recreations 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 14 38%
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 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,589,103
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#1,737
of 2,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#335,145
of 446,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#59
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 446,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.