↓ Skip to main content

Patients' reports or clinicians' assessments: which are better for prognosticating?

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care , May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Patients' reports or clinicians' assessments: which are better for prognosticating?
Published in
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care , May 2012
DOI 10.1136/bmjspcare-2012-000216
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paddy Stone, Bridget Gwilliam, Vaughan Keeley, Chris Todd, Matthew Gittins, Laura Kelly, Stephen Barclay, Chris Roberts

Abstract

The Prognosis in Palliative care Scale (PiPS) predicts survival in advanced cancer patients more accurately than a doctor's or a nurse's estimate. PiPS scores are derived using observer ratings of symptom severity and performance status. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patient-rated data would provide better prognostic estimates than clinician observer ratings. 1018 subjects with advanced cancer no longer undergoing tumour-directed therapy were recruited to a multi-centre study. Prognostic models were developed using observer ratings, patient ratings or a composite method that used patient ratings when available or else used observer ratings. The performance of the prognostic models was compared by determining the agreement between the models' predictions and the survival of study participants. All three approaches to model development resulted in prognostic scores that were able to differentiate between patients with a survival of 'days', 'weeks' or 'months+'. However, the observer-rated models were significantly (p<0.05) more accurate than the patient-rated models. A prognostic model derived using observer-rated data was more accurate at predicting survival than a similar model derived using patient self-report measures. This is clinically important because patient-rated data can be burdensome and difficult to obtain in patients with terminal illnesses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Unspecified 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Other 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 50%
Unspecified 3 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 14%
Psychology 1 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 August 2013.
All research outputs
#2,962,434
of 12,465,215 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
#373
of 910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,375
of 125,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,465,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 910 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 125,059 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.