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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2): study protocol for a multi-centre, prospective, observational, cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Palliative Care, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12904-018-0352-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anastasia K. Kalpakidou, Chris Todd, Vaughan Keeley, Jane Griffiths, Karen Spencer, Victoria Vickerstaff, Rumana Z. Omar, Patrick Stone |
| Abstract |
More accurate methods of prognostication are likely to lead to improvements in the quality of care of patients approaching the ends of their lives. The Prognosis in Palliative care Scales (PiPS) are prognostic models of survival. The scores are calculated using simple clinical data and observations. There are two separate PiPS models; PiPS-A for patients without blood test results and PiPS-B for patients with blood test results. Both models predict whether a patient is likely to live for "days", "weeks" or "months" and have been shown to perform as well as clinicians' estimates of survival. PiPS-B has also been found to be significantly better than doctors' estimates of survival. We report here a protocol for the validation of PiPS and for the evaluation of the accuracy of other prognostic tools in a new, larger cohort of patients with advanced cancer. This is a national, multi-centre, prospective, observational cohort study, aiming to recruit 1778 patients via palliative care services across England and Wales. Eligible patients have advanced, incurable cancer and have recently been referred to palliative care services. Patients with or without capacity are included in the study. The primary outcome is the accuracy of PiPS predictions and the difference in accuracy between these predictions and the clinicians' estimates of survival; with PiPS-B being the main model of interest. The secondary outcomes include the accuracy of predictions by the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Palliative Prognostic score (PaP) and the Feliu Prognostic Nomogram (FPN) compared with actual patient survival and clinicians' estimates of survival. A nested qualitative sub-study using face-to-face interviews with patients, carers and clinicians is also being undertaken to assess the acceptability of the prognostic models and to identify barriers and facilitators to clinical use. The study closed to recruitment at the end of April 2018 having exceeded the required sample size of 1778 patients. The qualitative sub-study is nearing completion. This demonstrates the feasibility of recruiting large numbers of participants to a prospective palliative care study. ISRCTN13688211 (registration date: 28/06/2016). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 21% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 64% |
| Scientists | 3 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Librarian | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Unknown | 28 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 32 | 52% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,264,635
of 24,026,368 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#241
of 1,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,595
of 334,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#11
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,026,368 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 334,213 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 52% of its contemporaries.