↓ Skip to main content

Patient-reported outcomes in cancer cachexia clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Patient-reported outcomes in cancer cachexia clinical trials
Published in
Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1097/spc.0000000000000168
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally J. Wheelwright, Colin D. Johnson

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures should be used when measuring concepts best known to the patient. To maximize the translation of findings into clinical practice, PRO measures that are most relevant for the patient group, should be used and careful reporting of the PRO results is required. The study reviews the use of PRO assessments in cancer cachexia randomized controlled trials. Most, but not all, recent cancer cachexia randomized controlled trials include PRO measures, and significant informative results have been found. PRO measures are rarely the primary endpoint. Most frequently, health -related quality of life and/or symptoms are assessed. However, instruments which are not cancer cachexia-specific are often used. Reporting of PRO data is generally poor. Patient-centred care cannot be delivered without patient-centred outcome information and the assessment of the efficacy of interventions is partly determined by whether there is a measurable perceived patient benefit. To improve the chance of finding significant and useful results, investigators should use cancer cachexia-specific instruments and report their studies carefully.

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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 26%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
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 28 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,388,554
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care
#233
of 677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,885
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 677 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 395,421 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.