↓ Skip to main content

The CONSENSUS study: protocol for a mixed methods study to establish which outcomes should be included in a core outcome set for oropharyngeal cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
The CONSENSUS study: protocol for a mixed methods study to establish which outcomes should be included in a core outcome set for oropharyngeal cancer
Published in
Trials, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-168
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aoife MI Waters, Catrin Tudur Smith, Bridget Young, Terry M Jones

Abstract

The incidence of oropharyngeal cancer is increasing in the developed world. This has led to a large rise in research activity and clinical trials in this area, yet there is no consensus on which outcomes should be measured. As a result, the outcomes measured often differ between trials of comparable interventions, making the combination or comparison of results between trials impossible. Outcomes may also be 'cherry-picked', such that favourable results are reported, and less favourable results withheld. The development of a minimum outcome reporting standard, known as a core outcome set, goes some way to addressing these problems. Core outcome sets are ideally developed using a patient-centred approach so that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and clinical practice. Core outcome sets drive up the quality and relevance of research by ensuring that the right outcomes are consistently measured and reported in trials in specific areas of health or healthcare.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 97 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Master 12 12%
Other 9 9%
Professor 5 5%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 31 31%