↓ Skip to main content

COgnitive behavioural therapy versus standardised medical care for adults with Dissociative non-Epileptic Seizures (CODES): statistical and economic analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, June 2017
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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
COgnitive behavioural therapy versus standardised medical care for adults with Dissociative non-Epileptic Seizures (CODES): statistical and economic analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2006-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily J. Robinson, Laura H. Goldstein, Paul McCrone, Iain Perdue, Trudie Chalder, John D. C. Mellers, Mark P. Richardson, Joanna Murray, Markus Reuber, Nick Medford, Jon Stone, Alan Carson, Sabine Landau

Abstract

Dissociative seizures (DSs), also called psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, are a distressing and disabling problem for many patients in neurological settings with high and often unnecessary economic costs. The COgnitive behavioural therapy versus standardised medical care for adults with Dissociative non-Epileptic Seizures (CODES) trial is an evaluation of a specifically tailored psychological intervention with the aims of reducing seizure frequency and severity and improving psychological well-being in adults with DS. The aim of this paper is to report in detail the quantitative and economic analysis plan for the CODES trial, as agreed by the trial steering committee. The CODES trial is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial performed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 13 sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone for adult outpatients with DS. The objectives and design of the trial are summarised, and the aims and procedures of the planned analyses are illustrated. The proposed analysis plan addresses statistical considerations such as maintaining blinding, monitoring adherence with the protocol, describing aspects of treatment and dealing with missing data. The formal analysis approach for the primary and secondary outcomes is described, as are the descriptive statistics that will be reported. This paper provides transparency to the planned inferential analyses for the CODES trial prior to the extraction of outcome data. It also provides an update to the previously published trial protocol and guidance to those conducting similar trials. ISRCTN registry ISRCTN05681227 (registered on 5 March 2014); ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02325544 (registered on 15 December 2014).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 22 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 23 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,263,209
of 19,545,556 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#362
of 5,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,557
of 284,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,545,556 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. 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 284,909 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.