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 |
Measuring health-related quality of life in cervical cancer patients: a systematic review of the most used questionnaires and their validity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-016-0289-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Casper Tax, Marlie E. Steenbergen, Petra L. M. Zusterzeel, Ruud L. M. Bekkers, Maroeska M. Rovers |
| Abstract |
Data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is paramount for shared and evidence based decision-making. Since an overview of cervical cancer HRQoL tools and their validity appears to be lacking, we performed a systematic review on usage of disease specific HRQoL instruments in cervical cancer patients and their psychometric properties to identify the most suitable cervical cancer specific HRQoL tool. We searched Pubmed, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception up to 18 October 2016 for studies on quality of life in cervical cancer patients. Data extraction and HRQoL identification was performed by two independent reviewers. Validation studies of the identified cervical cancer specific HRQoL tools were retrieved and assessed on psychometric properties using the COSMIN checklist. All used cervical cancer specific HRQoL instruments were scored and ranked according to their psychometric properties. We included 156 studies (20,690 patients) and identified 31 HRQoL tools. The EORTC QLQ-CX24 (35 studies; 5,556 patients) and FACT-Cx (22 studies; 4,224 patients) were the only cervical cancer specific tools. The EORTC QLQ-CX24 had 4 out of 9 positive rated psychometric properties; internal consistency, content and construct validity, and agreement. Criterion validity, reliability, and interpretability scored doubtful. Responsiveness and floor- and ceiling effects were not reported. The FACT-Cx had 2 out of 9 positive rated psychometric properties; internal consistency and agreement. Content validity, reliability, and interpretability scored doubtful while criterion and construct validity scored negative. Responsiveness and floor- and ceiling effects were not reported. The validity of the often used EORTC QLQ-CX24 questionnaire for cervical cancer patients remains uncertain as 5 out of 9 psychometric properties were doubtful or not reported in current literature. Cervical cancer specific HRQoL tools should therefore always be used in conjunction with validated generic cancer HRQoL tools until proper validity has been proven, or a more valid tool has been developed. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 28 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 16% |
| Psychology | 6 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 30 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#7,095,388
of 23,662,553 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,041
of 2,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,001
of 421,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#16
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,662,553 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,092 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 421,926 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.