↓ Skip to main content

Overcoming barriers to the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: the PROMOTION Registry

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Overcoming barriers to the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: the PROMOTION Registry
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-12-86
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabio Efficace, Jonathan Rees, Peter Fayers, Andrea Pusic, Martin Taphoorn, Elfriede Greimel, Jaap Reijneveld, Katie Whale, Jane Blazeby

Abstract

Every cancer treatment, irrespective of its clinical effectiveness, has an impact on patients' quality of life (QoL). Even recently developed targeted therapies might have side effects and significantly impact patients' QoL. Thus, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of different treatments from the patient's standpoint has become a must in clinical research and is highly valued by major stakeholders. Thousands of cancer patients are enrolled into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) each year and many complete patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to obtain patient-centered information as part of the assessment of the overall effectiveness of the new therapy. Some of these RCTs have generated high quality PRO evidence forming the basis for approval (or support to approval) of drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, a consistent strategy to determine the quality of patient centered evidence presented in RCTs has until recently been lacking. One of the fundamental questions when including PROs in clinical research revolves around methodological robustness and consistency of outcome reporting. Cancer patients, physicians and healthcare system stakeholders need to rely on solid information to make the best possible choice regarding treatment. Therefore generating high-quality findings from PRO assessment in cancer trials is of paramount importance. In an effort to improve quality of PRO assessment and reporting in the near future, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group (QLG) recently launched the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements Over Time In ONcology (PROMOTION) Registry. The scope of this Registry is to identify, track, analyse, and store information on all cancer RCTs that have included PROs, and assess the quality of their PRO assessments. The PROMOTION Registry is an extensive source of information for all investigators involved in PROs related cancer research and will continue to be regularly updated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 3 6%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 June 2014.
All research outputs
#8,185,927
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#941
of 2,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,642
of 242,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#13
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 242,853 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 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.