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 |
A systematic evaluation of compliance and reporting of patient-reported outcome endpoints in ovarian cancer randomised controlled trials: implications for generalisability and clinical practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41687-017-0008-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Michael Friedlander, Melanie Calvert, Martin Stockler, Derek Kyte, Peey-Sei Kok, Madeleine T. King |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to evaluate the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of ovarian cancer randomised-controlled trial (RCT) publications, describe PRO compliance, and explore potential relationships among these and completeness of PRO protocol content. Publications of Phase III ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified by Medline and Cochrane systematic search: January 2000 to February 2016. Two reviewers determined the number of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-PRO Extension items addressed in publications. Compliance rates (defined as the proportion of participants included in the principal PRO analysis, of those from whom PRO assessments were expected) were extracted. The relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and compliance rates was explored using scatter plots. Additionally CONSORT-PRO score and PRO compliance rates respectively were compared with corresponding PRO protocol scores obtained from a previous study. Thirty-six eligible RCTs (n = 33 with secondary PRO endpoint) were identified and analysed. The average number of CONSORT-PRO items addressed in publications was 6.7 (48%; Range 0-13.5/14). Three RCTs did not report PRO results; in 1 case due to poor compliance. Some compliance information was reported in 26 RCTs, but was considered complete for only 10 (28%) RCTs. Compliance rates were poor overall, ranging from 59 to 83%; therefore missing PRO data from 17 to 41% of participants in these trials could have been avoided.Of the 26 (73%) RCTs for which PRO protocol completeness scores were available, 6 RCTs reported complete compliance information and the 3 of these RCTs with highest PRO compliance had highest protocol checklist scores. Few RCTs reported PRO compliance information in a manner enabling assessment of the generalisability of PRO results. This information is particularly important in RCTs of advanced ovarian cancer because it is important to be able to determine if missing data was due to worsening illness compared to methodological issues. Poor compliance appeared related to poor PRO protocol content, and in one case prevented PRO results from being reported, highlighting the need to address compliance strategies in the protocol. Adhering to protocol and CONSORT-PRO reporting guidance should improve PRO implementation and reporting respectively in ovarian cancer RCTs and allow results to meaningfully inform clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 19% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 52% |
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 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,219,568
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#186
of 503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,475
of 323,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 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 503 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 323,110 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.