↓ Skip to main content

Integrating the patient voice with clinician reports to identify a hepatocellular carcinoma-specific subset of treatment-related symptomatic adverse events

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Integrating the patient voice with clinician reports to identify a hepatocellular carcinoma-specific subset of treatment-related symptomatic adverse events
Published in
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s41687-018-0063-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca M. Speck, William R. Lenderking, James W. Shaw

Abstract

Incorporating patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) is important in evaluating safety and tolerability in cancer clinical trials. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to assess the frequency, severity, and/or interference of patient-reported symptomatic AEs. The objective of this study was to identify, based on oncologist and patient interviews, a relevant subset of symptomatic AEs from the PRO-CTCAE that can be used to optimize patient reporting of symptomatic AEs in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) clinical trials. Qualitative and quantitative data on HCC diagnosis, treatment, symptoms, and side effects were collected from patients. Using a numerical rating scale, medical oncologists specializing in HCC rated the importance of (1) 34 symptomatic AEs (grade ≥ 2) identified in past sponsor HCC clinical trials, (2) each PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AE item to the patient, and (3) each PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AE item with respect to patient safety or tolerability. Patients completed the PRO-CTCAE items and were debriefed on the importance of each PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AE to them. Five medical oncologists from the United States, Spain, Taiwan, Korea, and Hong Kong with 14 to 30 years of experience, and 17 patients with HCC and Child-Pugh class A or B cirrhosis status completed interviews. Medical oncologists rated the following symptomatic AEs from prior trials as being highly important to patients (mean rating of ≥7 on a scale from 0 to 10): hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, fatigue, decreased appetite, rash, vomiting, and weight loss. PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AEs rated by medical oncologists as being highly important to patients included diarrhea, vomiting, shivering or shaking chills, hand-foot syndrome, rash, fatigue, difficulty swallowing, decreased appetite, and loss of control of bowel movements. Patients rated the following PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AEs as being highly important: loss of appetite/lack of interest in food, pain/tenderness at injection/insertion site, fatigue/lack of energy/tiredness, nausea, and hair loss. This study identified a preliminary list of clinically relevant symptomatic AEs from interviews with both medical oncologists and patients that can be used to support assessments of treatment safety and tolerability in HCC clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Unspecified 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 9 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Psychology 2 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 September 2019.
All research outputs
#13,840,040
of 24,174,783 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#198
of 577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,581
of 337,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,174,783 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 337,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.