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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Systematic review of outcome measures in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis treatment trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13223-016-0144-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tamar Rubin, Jacqueline Clayton, Denise Adams, Rabin Persad, Sunita Vohra |
| Abstract |
Heterogeneity has been noted in the selection and reporting of disease-specific, pediatric outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The consequence is invalid results or difficulty comparing results across trials. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess primary outcome and outcome measure selection and reporting, in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) treatment trials. As secondary objectives, we compared trial disease definition to established concensus guidelines, and the efficacy of current EoE treatments. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL since 2001. We also searched clinical trial registries (portal.nihr.ac.uk; clinicaltrials.gov; isrctn.com; and anzctr.org.au) and references of included studies. We included RCTs of EoE treatment in patients 0-18 years. Two authors independently assessed articles. Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. All identified primary outcomes, however, of 9 unique primary outcomes, only 2 were used in more than one study. In total, 25 unique primary and secondary outcome measures were employed for pediatric EoE treatment trials. Measurement properties and rationale for their selection was rarely provided. Uptake of consensus-based diagnostic criteria was 25 % in trials initiated after 2011. Due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies obtained, no meta-analysis of treatment efficacy could be undertaken. This SR was limited to exclusively pediatric RCTs. The results of this study confirm the need for a standardized set of core outcomes that are universally reported in pediatric EoE trials. Consistent disease definition and standardized outcome reporting will facilitate meta-analyses across similar trials and inform future clinical decision-making. Systematic review registration number CRD42013003798. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 18% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 41% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#784
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,893
of 348,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 348,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.