↓ Skip to main content

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in squamous cell carcinoma: study protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in squamous cell carcinoma: study protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey
Published in
Trials, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2069-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel I. Schlessinger, Sanjana Iyengar, Arianna F. Yanes, Sarah G. Chiren, Victoria Godinez-Puig, Brian R. Chen, Anastasia O. Kurta, Jochen Schmitt, Stefanie Deckert, Karina C. Furlan, Emily Poon, Todd V. Cartee, Ian A. Maher, Murad Alam, Joseph F. Sobanko

Abstract

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is a common skin cancer that poses a risk of metastasis. Clinical investigations into SCC treatment are common, but the outcomes reported are highly variable, omitted, or clinically irrelevant. The outcome heterogeneity and reporting bias of these studies leave clinicians unable to accurately compare studies. Core outcome sets (COSs) are an agreed minimum set of outcomes recommended to be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a given condition or disease. Although COSs are under development for several dermatologic conditions, work has yet to be done to identify core outcomes specific for SCC. Outcome extraction for COS generation will occur via four methods: (1) systematic literature review; (2) patient interviews; (3) other published sources; and (4) input from stakeholders in medicine, pharmacy, and other relevant industries. The list of outcomes will be revaluated by the Measuring PRiority Outcome Variables via Excellence in Dermatologic surgery (IMPROVED) Steering Committee. Delphi processes will be performed separately by expert clinicians and patients to condense the list of outcomes generated. A consensus meeting with relevant stakeholders will be conducted after the Delphi exercise to further select outcomes, taking into account participant scores. At the end of the meeting, members will vote and decide on a final recommended set of core outcomes. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) organization and the Cochrane Skin Group - Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN) will serve as advisers throughout the COS generation process. Comparison of clinical trials via systematic reviews and meta-analyses is facilitated when investigators study outcomes that are relevant and similar. The aim of this project is to develop a COS to guide use for future clinical trials.

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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Lecturer 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 4 25%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 63%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 13%

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 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,750,410
of 12,852,852 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,135
of 3,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,947
of 260,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,852,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 260,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.