↓ Skip to main content

Control Group Design, Contamination and Drop-Out in Exercise Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2015
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
Control Group Design, Contamination and Drop-Out in Exercise Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0120996
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte N. Steins Bisschop, Kerry S. Courneya, Miranda J. Velthuis, Evelyn M. Monninkhof, Lee W. Jones, Christine Friedenreich, Elsken van der Wall, Petra H. M. Peeters, Anne M. May

Abstract

Important considerations for exercise trials in cancer patients are contamination and differential drop-out among the control group members that might jeopardize the internal validity. This systematic review provides an overview of different control groups design characteristics of exercise-oncology trials and explores the association with contamination and drop-out rates. Randomized controlled exercise-oncology trials from two Cochrane reviews were included. Additionally, a computer-aided search using Medline (Pubmed), Embase and CINAHL was conducted after completion date of the Cochrane reviews. Eligible studies were classified according to three control group design characteristics: the exercise instruction given to controls before start of the study (exercise allowed or not); and the intervention the control group was offered during (any (e.g., education sessions or telephone contacts) or none) or after (any (e.g., cross-over or exercise instruction) or none) the intervention period. Contamination (yes or no) and excess drop-out rates (i.e., drop-out rate of the control group minus the drop-out rate exercise group) were described according to the three design characteristics of the control group and according to the combinations of these three characteristics; so we additionally made subgroups based on combinations of type and timing of instructions received. 40 exercise-oncology trials were included based on pre-specified eligibility criteria. The lowest contamination (7.1% of studies) and low drop-out rates (excess drop-out rate -4.7±9.2) were found in control groups offered an intervention after the intervention period. When control groups were offered an intervention both during and after the intervention period, contamination (0%) and excess drop-out rates (-10.0±12.8%) were even lower. Control groups receiving an intervention during and after the study intervention period have lower contamination and drop-out rates. The present findings can be considered when designing future exercise-oncology trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 134 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 18%
Student > Master 24 18%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Other 10 7%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 15%
Sports and Recreations 17 13%
Psychology 7 5%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 39 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,976,522
of 23,511,526 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#38,951
of 201,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,199
of 264,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#962
of 6,418 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,511,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 201,403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 264,870 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,418 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.