↓ Skip to main content

Twin–Twin Transfusion Syndrome: study protocol for developing, disseminating, and implementing a core outcome set

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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Twin–Twin Transfusion Syndrome: study protocol for developing, disseminating, and implementing a core outcome set
Published in
Trials, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2042-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asma Khalil, Helen Perry, James Duffy, Keith Reed, Ahmet Baschat, Jan Deprest, Kurt Hecher, Liesbeth Lewi, Enrico Lopriore, Dick Oepkes

Abstract

Twin-Twin Transfusion Syndrome (TTTS) is associated with an increased risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity. Several treatment interventions have been described for TTTS, including fetoscopic laser surgery, amnioreduction, septostomy, expectant management, and pregnancy termination. Over the last decade, fetoscopic laser surgery has become the primary treatment. The literature to date reports on many different outcomes, making it difficult to compare results or combine data from individual studies, limiting the value of research to guide clinical practice. With the advent and ongoing development of new therapeutic techniques, this is more important than ever. The development and use of a core outcome set has been proposed to address these issues, prioritising outcomes important to the key stakeholders, including patients. We aim to produce, disseminate, and implement a core outcome set for TTTS. An international steering group has been established to oversee the development of this core outcome set. This group includes healthcare professionals, researchers and patients. A systematic review is planned to identify previously reported outcomes following treatment for TTTS. Following completion, the identified outcomes will be evaluated by stakeholders using an international, multi-perspective online modified Delphi method to build consensus on core outcomes. This method encourages the participants towards consensus 'core' outcomes. All key stakeholders will be invited to participate. The steering group will then hold a consensus meeting to discuss results and form a core outcome set to be introduced and measured. Once core outcomes have been agreed, the next step will be to determine how they should be measured, disseminated, and implemented within an international context. The development, dissemination, and implementation of a core outcome set in TTTS will enable its use in future clinical trials, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. This is likely to advance the quality of research studies and their effective use in order to guide clinical practice and improve patient care, maternal, short-term perinatal outcomes and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), 921 Registered on July 2016. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42016043999 . Registered on 2 August 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 33 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 37 52%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 August 2017.
All research outputs
#15,923,424
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,154
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,120
of 329,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 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 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 329,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them