↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire assessing systemic therapy induced diarrhea in oncology patients

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 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
Development and validation of a patient-reported questionnaire assessing systemic therapy induced diarrhea in oncology patients
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0794-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Lui, Daniela Gallo-Hershberg, Carlo DeAngelis

Abstract

Systemic therapy-induced diarrhea (STID) is a common side effect experienced by more than half of cancer patients. Despite STID-associated complications and poorer quality of life (QoL), no validated assessment tools exist to accurately assess STID occurrence and severity to guide clinical management. Therefore, we developed and validated a patient-reported questionnaire (STIDAT). The STIDAT was developed using the FDA iterative process for patient-reported outcomes. A literature search uncovered potential items and questions for questionnaire construction used by oncology clinicians to develop questions for the preliminary instrument. The instrument was evaluated on its face validity and content validity by patient interviews. Repetitive, similar and different themes uncovered from patient interviews were implemented to revise the instrument to the version used for validation. Patients starting high-risk STID treatments were monitored using the STIDAT, bowel diaries and EORTC QLQ-C30. The STIDAT was evaluated for construct validity using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using minimal residual method with Promax rotation, reliability and consistency. A weighted scoring system was developed and a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve evaluated the tool's ability to detect STID occurrence. Median scores and variability were analysed to determine how well it differentiates between diarrhea severities. A post-hoc analysis determined how diarrhea severity impacted QoL of cancer patients. Patients defined diarrhea based on presence of watery stool. The STIDAT assessed patient's perception of having diarrhea, daily number of bowel movements, daily number of diarrhea episodes, antidiarrheal medication use, the presence of urgency, abdominal pain, abdominal spasms or fecal incontinence, patient's perception of diarrhea severity, and QoL. These dimensions were sorted into four clusters using EFA - patient's perception of diarrhea, frequency of diarrhea, fecal incontinence and abdominal symptoms. Cronbach's alpha was 0.78; kappa ranged from 0.934-0.952, except for abdominal spasms (κ = 0.0455). The positive predictive value was 96.4%, with the minimum score of 1.35 predicting a positive STID occurrence. Patients with moderate or severe diarrhea experience significant decreases in QoL compared to those with no diarrhea. This is the first patient-reported questionnaire that accurately predicts the occurrence and severity of diarrhea in oncology patients via assessing several bowel habit dimensions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 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 %
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 27 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Psychology 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 28 42%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 December 2022.
All research outputs
#6,227,575
of 23,392,375 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#722
of 2,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,818
of 443,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#26
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,392,375 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,197 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 443,092 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 58% of its contemporaries.