| Title |
Towards a core outcome set for hemorrhoidal disease—a systematic review of outcomes reported in literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00384-018-3046-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. R. van Tol, E. van Zwietering, J. Kleijnen, J. Melenhorst, L. P. S. Stassen, C. D. Dirksen, S. O. Breukink |
| Abstract |
Previously published literature regarding treatment of hemorrhoidal disease (HD) revealed a lack of uniform defined outcomes. These differences between outcomes among studies limit transparency and lead to incomparability of results. The aim of this study was to systematically list the types of outcomes used in HD studies. This list will be used to develop a core outcome set. We searched Medline (Pubmed), Embase (OVID), and Cochrane for interventional studies for adult patients with HD. Two authors independently identified and reviewed eligible studies. This resulted in a list of outcomes reported by each clinical trial. All outcomes were categorized using the conceptual framework OMERACT filter 2.0. A total of 34 randomized controlled trials and prospective observational studies were included in this study. A total of 59 different types of outcomes were identified. On average, 5.8 different outcomes (range 2-8) were used per study. The outcomes were structured into three core areas and10 ten domains. The most commonly reported core area was pathophysiological manifestations including the domain symptoms, complications, and recurrence. The most frequently reported outcomes were pain (91%), blood loss (94%), prolapse (71%), and incontinence (56%). There was a high variation in definitions of the common outcomes. And often there was no definition at all. This study shows a substantial heterogeneity in the types of outcomes in HD studies. We provided an overview of the types of outcomes reported in HD studies and identified a list of potentially relevant outcomes required for the development of a COS. |
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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 32% |
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 07 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,641,800
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#1,301
of 1,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,376
of 326,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#33
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 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 1,846 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 326,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.