↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Methylphenidate on Fatigue in Advanced Cancer: An Aggregated N-of-1 Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain & Symptom Management, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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
The Effect of Methylphenidate on Fatigue in Advanced Cancer: An Aggregated N-of-1 Trial
Published in
Journal of Pain & Symptom Management, April 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.03.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoffrey K. Mitchell, Janet R. Hardy, Catherine J. Nikles, Sue-Ann S. Carmont, Hugh E. Senior, Philip J. Schluter, Phillip Good, David C. Currow

Abstract

Fatigue is common in life-limiting cancer. Methylphenidate (MPH), a psychostimulant, may be a useful therapy. Gathering evidence in patients with advanced cancer can be challenging. To determine if MPH improves cancer-related fatigue in people with advanced cancer. N-of-1 trials are multi-cycle, double-blind, randomized, controlled crossover trials using standardized measures of effect in individuals. They are normally used to assess treatment effects in individuals. Aggregated N-of-1 trials from participants with end-stage cancer suffering fatigue were used to assess the group effect of MPH, producing an estimate of equivalent power to a parallel group randomized controlled trial (RCT) but requiring less than half of the sample size. Up to three cycles of MPH 5mg twice daily (three days) versus identical placebo (three days) capsules were offered to participants. Primary outcome was improvement in fatigue as measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Scale and the Wu Cancer Fatigue Scale. Analysis employed Bayesian statistical methods using intention-to-treat principles. Forty-three participants completed 84 cycles of MPH and placebo in random order - exceeding sample size estimates. Overall, MPH did not improve fatigue (mean difference 3.2; 95% credible interval: -2.0, 9.0; posterior probability of favorable effect 0.890). Eight participants showed important improvement and one showed important worsening of fatigue on MPH. There were no features that distinguished participants whose fatigue responded to MPH compared with those who did not. MPH does not improve fatigue in the population of patients with end-stage cancer. Aggregated N-of-1 trial methodology is feasible and produces population-based sample estimates with less than half the sample size required for the equivalent parallel group RCT. It also identified individuals who did and did not respond to MPH, which is a feature difficult to achieve in a standard RCT. The study was registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12609000794202).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 16%
Student > Bachelor 21 15%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 9 6%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 38 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 16%
Psychology 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 46 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2015.
All research outputs
#8,544,090
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain & Symptom Management
#2,100
of 4,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,450
of 279,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain & Symptom Management
#22
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 279,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.