↓ Skip to main content

Core Health Outcomes In Childhood Epilepsy (CHOICE): protocol for the selection of a core outcome set

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Core Health Outcomes In Childhood Epilepsy (CHOICE): protocol for the selection of a core outcome set
Published in
Trials, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2323-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Morris, Colin Dunkley, Frances M. Gibbon, Janet Currier, Deborah Roberts, Morwenna Rogers, Holly Crudgington, Lucy Bray, Bernie Carter, Dyfrig Hughes, Catrin Tudur Smith, Paula R. Williamson, Paul Gringras, Deb K. Pal

Abstract

There is increasing recognition that establishing a core set of outcomes to be evaluated and reported in trials of interventions for particular conditions will improve the usefulness of health research. There is no established core outcome set for childhood epilepsy. The aim of this work is to select a core outcome set to be used in evaluative research of interventions for children with rolandic epilepsy, as an exemplar of common childhood epilepsy syndromes. First we will identify what outcomes should be measured; then we will decide how to measure those outcomes. We will engage relevant UK charities and health professional societies as partners, and convene advisory panels for young people with epilepsy and parents of children with epilepsy. We will identify candidate outcomes from a search for trials of interventions for childhood epilepsy, statutory guidance and consultation with our advisory panels. Families, charities and health, education and neuropsychology professionals will be invited to participate in a Delphi survey following recommended practices in the development of core outcome sets. Participants will be able to recommend additional outcome domains. Over three rounds of Delphi survey participants will rate the importance of candidate outcome domains and state the rationale for their decisions. Over the three rounds we will seek consensus across and between families and health professionals on the more important outcomes. A face-to-face meeting will be convened to ratify the core outcome set. We will then review and recommend ways to measure the shortlisted outcomes using clinical assessment and/or patient-reported outcome measures. Our methodology is a proportionate and pragmatic approach to expediently produce a core outcome set for evaluative research of interventions aiming to improve the health of children with epilepsy. A number of decisions have to be made when designing a study to develop a core outcome set including defining the scope, choosing which stakeholders to engage, most effective ways to elicit their views, especially children and a potential role for qualitative research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Psychology 8 12%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 15 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,963,176
of 12,247,570 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,137
of 2,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,687
of 342,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#81
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,247,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 342,117 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 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 67% of its contemporaries.