↓ Skip to main content

Audiovisual biofeedback breathing guidance for lung cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: a multi-institutional phase II randomised clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Audiovisual biofeedback breathing guidance for lung cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: a multi-institutional phase II randomised clinical trial
Published in
BMC Cancer, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1483-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean Pollock, Ricky O’Brien, Kuldeep Makhija, Fiona Hegi-Johnson, Jane Ludbrook, Angela Rezo, Regina Tse, Thomas Eade, Roland Yeghiaian-Alvandi, Val Gebski, Paul J Keall

Abstract

There is a clear link between irregular breathing and errors in medical imaging and radiation treatment. The audiovisual biofeedback system is an advanced form of respiratory guidance that has previously demonstrated to facilitate regular patient breathing. The clinical benefits of audiovisual biofeedback will be investigated in an upcoming multi-institutional, randomised, and stratified clinical trial recruiting a total of 75 lung cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. To comprehensively perform a clinical evaluation of the audiovisual biofeedback system, a multi-institutional study will be performed. Our methodological framework will be based on the widely used Technology Acceptance Model, which gives qualitative scales for two specific variables, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, which are fundamental determinants for user acceptance. A total of 75 lung cancer patients will be recruited across seven radiation oncology departments across Australia. Patients will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio, with 2/3 of the patients being recruited into the intervention arm and 1/3 in the control arm. 2:1 randomisation is appropriate as within the interventional arm there is a screening procedure where only patients whose breathing is more regular with audiovisual biofeedback will continue to use this system for their imaging and treatment procedures. Patients within the intervention arm whose free breathing is more regular than audiovisual biofeedback in the screen procedure will remain in the intervention arm of the study but their imaging and treatment procedures will be performed without audiovisual biofeedback. Patients will also be stratified by treating institution and for treatment intent (palliative vs. radical) to ensure similar balance in the arms across the sites. Patients and hospital staff operating the audiovisual biofeedback system will complete questionnaires to assess their experience with audiovisual biofeedback. The objectives of this clinical trial is to assess the impact of audiovisual biofeedback on breathing motion, the patient experience and clinical confidence in the system, clinical workflow, treatment margins, and toxicity outcomes. This clinical trial marks an important milestone in breathing guidance studies as it will be the first randomised, controlled trial providing the most comprehensive evaluation of the clinical impact of breathing guidance on cancer radiation therapy to date. This study is powered to determine the impact of AV biofeedback on breathing regularity and medical image quality. Objectives such as determining the indications and contra-indications for the use of AV biofeedback, evaluation of patient experience, radiation toxicity occurrence and severity, and clinician confidence will shed light on the design of future phase III clinical trials. This trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), its trial ID is ACTRN12613001177741 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 98 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 30 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 19%
Psychology 12 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Physics and Astronomy 6 6%
Sports and Recreations 5 5%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 31 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 April 2016.
All research outputs
#13,441,810
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,974
of 8,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,048
of 263,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#48
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,300 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 263,985 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 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 62% of its contemporaries.