↓ Skip to main content

DARS: a phase III randomised multicentre study of dysphagia- optimised intensity- modulated radiotherapy (Do-IMRT) versus standard intensity- modulated radiotherapy (S-IMRT) in head and neck cancer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, October 2016
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
DARS: a phase III randomised multicentre study of dysphagia- optimised intensity- modulated radiotherapy (Do-IMRT) versus standard intensity- modulated radiotherapy (S-IMRT) in head and neck cancer
Published in
BMC Cancer, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2813-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Imran Petkar, Keith Rooney, Justin W. G. Roe, Joanne M. Patterson, David Bernstein, Justine M. Tyler, Marie A. Emson, James P. Morden, Kathrin Mertens, Elizabeth Miles, Matthew Beasley, Tom Roques, Shreerang A. Bhide, Kate L. Newbold, Kevin J. Harrington, Emma Hall, Christopher M. Nutting

Abstract

Persistent dysphagia following primary chemoradiation (CRT) for head and neck cancers can have a devastating impact on patients' quality of life. Single arm studies have shown that the dosimetric sparing of critical swallowing structures such as the pharyngeal constrictor muscle and supraglottic larynx can translate to better functional outcomes. However, there are no current randomised studies to confirm the benefits of such swallow sparing strategies. The aim of Dysphagia/Aspiration at risk structures (DARS) trial is to determine whether reducing the dose to the pharyngeal constrictors with dysphagia-optimised intensity- modulated radiotherapy (Do-IMRT) will lead to an improvement in long- term swallowing function without having any detrimental impact on disease-specific survival outcomes. The DARS trial (CRUK/14/014) is a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) for patients undergoing primary (chemo) radiotherapy for T1-4, N0-3, M0 pharyngeal cancers. Patients will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to either standard IMRT (S-IMRT) or Do-IMRT. Radiotherapy doses will be the same in both groups; however in patients allocated to Do-IMRT, irradiation of the pharyngeal musculature will be reduced by delivering IMRT identifying the pharyngeal muscles as organs at risk. The primary endpoint of the trial is the difference in the mean MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) composite score, a patient-reported outcome, measured at 12 months post radiotherapy. Secondary endpoints include prospective and longitudinal evaluation of swallow outcomes incorporating a range of subjective and objective assessments, quality of life measures, loco-regional control and overall survival. Patients and speech and language therapists (SLTs) will both be blinded to treatment allocation arm to minimise outcome-reporting bias. DARS is the first RCT investigating the effect of swallow sparing strategies on improving long-term swallowing outcomes in pharyngeal cancers. An integral part of the study is the multidimensional approach to swallowing assessment, providing robust data for the standardisation of future swallow outcome measures. A translational sub- study, which may lead to the development of future predictive and prognostic biomarkers, is also planned. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, ISRCTN25458988 (04/01/2016).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 30 22%
Unknown 38 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Psychology 6 4%
Physics and Astronomy 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 47 34%
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 17 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,182,888
of 25,011,008 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#681
of 8,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,473
of 326,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#12
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,011,008 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 8,845 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 326,752 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.