↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Readers on

mendeley
437 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.
Article details
Title
The eSMART study protocol: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate electronic symptom management using the advanced symptom management system (ASyMS) remote technology for patients with cancer
Published in
BMJ Open, June 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015016
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

While some evidence exists that real-time remote symptom monitoring devices can decrease morbidity and prevent unplanned admissions in oncology patients, overall, these studies have significant methodological weaknesses. The electronic Symptom Management using the Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS) Remote Technology (eSMART) study is designed to specifically address these weaknesses with an appropriately powered, repeated-measures, parallel-group stratified randomised controlled trial of oncology patients. A total of 1108 patients scheduled to commence first-line chemotherapy (CTX) for breast, colorectal or haematological cancer will be recruited from multiple sites across five European countries.Patients will be randomised (1:1) to the ASyMS intervention (intervention group) or to standard care currently available at each site (control group). Patients in the control and intervention groups will complete a demographic and clinical questionnaire, as well as a set of valid and reliable electronic patient-reported outcome measures at enrolment, after each of their CTX cycles (up to a maximum of six cycles) and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after completion of their sixth cycle of CTX. Outcomes that will be assessed include symptom burden (primary outcome), quality of life, supportive care needs, anxiety, self-care self-efficacy, work limitations and cost effectiveness and, from a health professional perspective, changes in clinical practice (secondary outcomes). Ethical approval will be obtained prior to the implementation of all major study amendments. Applications will be submitted to all of the ethics committees that granted initial approval.eSMART received approval from the relevant ethics committees at all of the clinical sites across the five participating countries. In collaboration with the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), the trial results will be disseminated through publications in scientific journals, presentations at international conferences, and postings on the eSMART website and other relevant clinician and consumer websites; establishment of an eSMART website (www.esmartproject.eu) with publicly accessible general information; creation of an eSMART Twitter Handle, and production of a toolkit for implementing/utilising the ASyMS technology in a variety of clinical practices and other transferable health care contexts. NCT02356081.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 437 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 437 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 10%
Researcher 39 9%
Student > Bachelor 31 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 5%
Other 69 16%
Unknown 174 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 76 17%
Psychology 19 4%
Social Sciences 15 3%
Computer Science 14 3%
Other 54 12%
Unknown 182 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 22 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,879,269
of 32,647,928 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#6,451
of 28,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,057
of 355,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#160
of 553 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,647,928 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 28,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 355,963 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 553 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 71% of its contemporaries.