↓ Skip to main content

Designing and conducting randomized controlled trials in palliative care: A summary of discussions from the 2010 clinical research forum of the Australian Palliative Care Clinical Studies…

Overview of attention for article published in Palliative Medicine, August 2011
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Designing and conducting randomized controlled trials in palliative care: A summary of discussions from the 2010 clinical research forum of the Australian Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative
Published in
Palliative Medicine, August 2011
DOI 10.1177/0269216311417036
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tania M Shelby-James, Janet Hardy, Meera Agar, Patsy Yates, Geoff Mitchell, Christine Sanderson, Tim Luckett, Amy P Abernethy, David C Currow

Abstract

Rigorous clinical research in palliative care is challenging but achievable. Trial participants are likely to have deteriorating performance status, co-morbidities and progressive disease. It is difficult to recruit patients, and attrition unrelated to the intervention being trialled is high. The aim of this paper is to highlight practical considerations from a forum held to discuss these issues by active palliative care clinical researchers. To date, the Australian Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative (PaCCSC) has randomized more than 500 participants across 12 sites in 8 Phase III studies. Insights from the 2010 clinical research forum of the PaCCSC are reported. All active Australian researchers in palliative care were invited to present their current research and address three specific questions: (1) What has worked well? (2) What didn't work well? and (3) How should the research be done differently next time? Fourteen studies were presented, including six double-blind, randomized, controlled, multi-site trials run by the PaCCSC. Key recommendations are reported, including guidance on design; methodologies; and strategies for maximizing recruitment and retention. These recommendations will help to inform future trial design and conduct in palliative care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 4%
United States 2 4%
Spain 1 2%
Sudan 1 2%
Unknown 48 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 22%
Other 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 7 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 17 December 2012.
All research outputs
#3,933,899
of 24,027,644 outputs
Outputs from Palliative Medicine
#1,220
of 2,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,166
of 122,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Palliative Medicine
#15
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,027,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,061 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 122,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.