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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Protocol for a systematic review of psychological interventions for cancer-related fatigue in post-treatment cancer survivors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0160-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Teresa Corbett, Declan Devane, Jane C. Walsh, AnnMarie Groarke, Brian E. McGuire |
| Abstract |
Fatigue is a common symptom in cancer patients that can persist beyond the curative treatment phase. Some evidence has been reported for interventions for fatigue during active treatment. However, to date, there is no systematic review on psychological interventions for fatigue after the completion of curative treatment for cancer. This is a protocol for a systematic review that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions for cancer-related fatigue in post-treatment cancer survivors. This systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database. We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library), PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and relevant sources of grey literature. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which have evaluated psychological interventions in adult cancer patients after the completion of treatment, with fatigue as an outcome measure, will be included. Two review authors will independently extract data from the selected studies and assess the methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Most existing evidence on cancer-related fatigue is from those in active cancer treatment. This systematic review and meta-analysis will build upon previous evaluations of psychological interventions in people during and after cancer treatment. With the growing need for stage-specific research in cancer, this review seeks to highlight a gap in current practice and to strengthen the evidence base of randomised controlled trials in the area. PROSPERO CRD42014015219 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 2 | 25% |
| Ireland | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 10 December 2015.
All research outputs
#6,921,899
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,267
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,228
of 394,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#20
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 394,684 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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.