The Standardising Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine group was established to derive an appropriate set of endpoints for use in clinical trials related to anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. Anaesthetic or analgesic technique during cancer surgery with curative intent may influence the risk of recurrence or metastasis. However, given the current equipoise in the existing literature, prospective, randomised, controlled trials are necessary to test this hypothesis. As such, a cancer subgroup was formed to derive endpoints related to research in onco-anaesthesia based on a current evidence base, international consensus and expert guidance.
We undertook a systematic review to identify measures of oncological outcome used in the oncological, surgical, and wider literature. A multiround Delphi consensus process that included up to 89 clinician-researchers was then used to refine a recommended list of endpoints.
We identified 90 studies in a literature search, which were the basis for a preliminary list of nine outcome measures and their definitions. A further two were added during the Delphi process. Response rates for Delphi rounds one, two, and three were 88% (n=9), 82% (n=73), and 100% (n=10), respectively. A final list of 10 defined endpoints was refined and developed, of which six secured approval by ≥70% of the group: cancer health related quality of life, days alive and out of hospital at 90 days, time to tumour progression, disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival (and 5-yr overall survival).
Standardised endpoints in clinical outcomes studies will support benchmarking and pooling (meta-analysis) of trials. It is therefore recommended that one or more of these consensus-derived endpoints should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials evaluating a causal effect of anaesthesia-analgesia technique on oncological outcomes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 12 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,718,467
of 34,599,687 outputs
Outputs from BJA: The British Journal of Anaesthesia
#564
of 8,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,619
of 371,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BJA: The British Journal of Anaesthesia
#17
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,599,687 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,926 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 371,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
