↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the extent to which current clinical research is consistent with patient priorities: a scoping review using a case study in patients on or nearing dialysis

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 620)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Assessing the extent to which current clinical research is consistent with patient priorities: a scoping review using a case study in patients on or nearing dialysis
Published in
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40697-015-0070-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Min Jun, Braden Manns, Andreas Laupacis, Liam Manns, Bhavdeep Rehal, Sally Crowe, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn

Abstract

There is growing acknowledgement that engaging patients to identify their research priorities is important. Using a case study of patients on or nearing dialysis, we sought to assess the extent to which recently completed and ongoing clinical research was consistent with priorities identified by patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Over a 4-year sampling frame (January 2010 to December 2013), we systematically searched the medical literature (top 5 nephrology and top 10 general medicine journals accessed through MEDLINE via Ovid), international randomized controlled trial (RCT) registries, and national government and kidney research funding organizations (Canada, U.S., Australia, and U.K.) for published clinical studies, registered RCTs, and funded clinical studies, respectively. Published clinical studies, registered RCTs, and funded clinical studies were categorized as to whether or not they were consistent with the top 10 research priorities identified by patients, their caregivers, and clinicians in a recent comprehensive research priority setting exercise. The search yielded 4293 published articles, 688 RCTs, and 70 funded studies, of which 1116 articles, 315 RCTs, and 70 funded studies were eligible for inclusion. Overall 194 published studies (17.4 %), 71 RCTs (22.5 %), and 15 funded studies (21.4 %) included topics consistent with the top 10 research priorities identified by patients. Four of the top 10 research priorities, including strategies to improve the management of itching, increase access to kidney transplantation, assess the psychosocial impact of kidney failure, and determine the effects of dietary restriction received virtually no attention. The top 10 priorities we used to categorize included studies were identified by Canadian patients, caregivers, and clinicians. The top research priorities may vary across different countries. The proportion of published studies that are consistent with the top 10 priorities could be different in nephrology journals with lower impact factors. Studies related to kidney transplantation and the psychosocial impact of kidney failure may have been published in journals not included in our search strategy. The majority of recently completed or ongoing clinical studies in patients on or nearing dialysis do not address the top research priorities of patients, raising concerns that current clinical research may not be meeting the needs of the ultimate consumer, in this case, patients on or nearing dialysis. Greater involvement of patients in research is required to bridge the gap between research and patients' needs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 23%
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Psychology 7 11%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 19 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 11 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,124,116
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#33
of 620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,816
of 286,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 286,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.