↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness and safety of proton beam radiation therapy in children with malignant central nervous system (CNS) tumours: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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.
Title
The effectiveness and safety of proton beam radiation therapy in children with malignant central nervous system (CNS) tumours: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0285-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline Main, Madhumita Dandapani, Mark Pritchard, Rachel Dodds, Simon P. Stevens, Nicky Thorp, Roger E. Taylor, Keith Wheatley, Barry Pizer, Matthew Morrall, Robert Phillips, Martin English, Pamela R. Kearns, Sophie Wilne, Jayne S. Wilson, Caroline Main, Madhumita Dandapani, Mark Pritchard, Rachel Dodds, Simon P. Stevens, Nicky Thorp, Roger E. Taylor, Keith Wheatley, Barry Pizer, Matthew Morrall, Robert Phillips, Martin English, Pamela R. Kearns, Sophie Wilne, Jayne S. Wilson

Abstract

The aim of this study is to use a systematic review framework to identify and synthesise the evidence on the use of proton beam therapy (PBT) for the treatment of children with CNS tumours and where possible compare this to the use of photon radiotherapy (RT). Standard systematic review methods aimed at minimising bias will be employed for study identification, selection and data extraction. Twelve electronic databases have been searched, and further citation, hand searching and reference checking will be employed. Studies assessing the effects of PBT used either alone or as part of a multimodality treatment regimen in children with CNS tumours will be included. Relevant economic evaluations will also be identified. The outcomes are survival (overall, progression-free, event-free, disease-free), local and regional control rates, short- and long-term adverse events, functional status measures and quality of survival. Two reviewers will independently screen and select studies for inclusion in the review. All interventional study designs will be eligible for inclusion in the review. However, initial scoping searches indicate the evidence base is likely to be limited to case series studies, with no studies of a higher quality being identified. Quality assessment will be undertaken using pre-specified criteria and tailored to study design if applicable. Studies will be combined using a narrative synthesis, with differences in results between studies highlighted and discussed in relation to the patient population, intervention and study quality. Where appropriate, if no studies of a comparative design are identified, outcomes will be compared against a range of estimates from the literature for similar populations and treatment regimens from the best available evidence from studies that include the use of advanced conventional photon therapy. The evidence base for the use of PBT in children with CNS tumours is likely to be relatively sparse, highly heterogeneous and potentially of a low quality with small sample sizes. Furthermore, selection and publication biases may limit the internal and external validity of studies. However, any tentative results from the review on potential treatment effects can be used to plan better quality research studies that are of a design appropriate for outcome comparison with conventional therapy. PROSPERO CRD42015029583.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,744,643
of 11,403,395 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#606
of 832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,245
of 263,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#31
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,403,395 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 832 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 263,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.