| Title |
The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Quality of Life Research, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11136-016-1339-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Michael Friedlander, Peey-Sei Kok, Melanie Calvert, Derek Kyte, Martin Stockler, Madeleine T. King |
| Abstract |
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide the patient's perspective of the impact of treatment. Evidence suggests that PRO content of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) protocols is generally sub-optimal. This study aimed to describe and evaluate the PRO-specific content of ovarian cancer RCT protocols. Published, phase III, ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified following a systematic search of Medline and Cochrane databases (Jan 2000 to Feb 2016). Corresponding RCT protocols were downloaded (if published) or obtained by contacting authors. Two investigators independently assessed adherence of PRO-specific content of included protocols to a checklist of 58 recommended PRO protocol items currently being developed by the International Society for Quality of Life Research. Discrepancies were resolved with a third investigator. Of 41 eligible trials identified, 26 protocols were assessed (developed 1995-2010). We were unable to obtain the remaining 15 protocols. Protocols addressed a mean of 28 % PRO checklist items (range 8-66 %). Fifteen (58 % of assessed protocols) provided a rationale for PRO assessment, 8 (31 %) described a PRO objective, 24 (92 %) included a PRO assessment schedule, but only 6 (23 %) justified timing of PRO assessments. Twelve protocols (46 %) provided staff data collection instructions, 4 (15 %) included plans for monitoring PRO compliance, and 16 (62 %) included a PRO analysis plan. On average, protocols addressed less than one-third of PRO protocol checklist items. In some cases, key guidance regarding PRO administration was lacking, which may lead to inconsistent and sub-optimal PRO methodology. Efforts are needed to improve PRO protocol content in cancer trials. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 25% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,172,409
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#765
of 2,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,793
of 352,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#15
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,849 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 352,763 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.