↓ Skip to main content

"You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
"You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis
Published in
BMC Women's Health, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12905-015-0248-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo Vercellini, Edgardo Somigliana, Ivan Cortinovis, Benedetta Bracco, Lucrezia de Braud, Dhouha Dridi, Silvano Milani

Abstract

Patients, now generally well informed through dedicated websites and support organizations, are beginning to look askance at clinical experimentation. We conducted a survey investigation to verify whether women with endometriosis would still accept to participate in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on treatment for pelvic pain. A total of 500 patients consecutively self-referring to an academic outpatient endometriosis clinic, were asked to compile two questionnaires focused on hypothetical comparisons between a new drug and a standard drug, and between medical and surgical treatment, for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. The main outcome measure was the percentage of patients willing to participate in a theoretical RCT. A total of 239 (48 %) women would decline participation in a comparative study on a new drug and a standard drug, as 204 (41 %) would prefer the former medication, and 35 (7 %) the latter. Fifty women (10 %) would participate in a RCT, but only 24 (5 %) would accept blinding. The most frequently chosen option was the patient preference trial (211; 42 %). No significant differences were observed in demographic and clinical characteristics between the 50 women who would accept and the 450 who would decline to be enrolled in a RCT. A total of 229 women (46 %) would decline participation in a comparative study on medical versus surgical treatment, as 186 (37 %) would prefer pharmacological therapy and 43 (9 %) a surgical procedure. Only 11 (2 %) women would participate in such a RCT. More than half of the women (260; 52 %) selected the patient preference trial. No significant variations in distributions of answers were observed between women who did or did not undergo a previous surgical procedure. Only a small minority of the women included in our study sample would accept randomization, and even less so blinding. Patient preference appears to play a central role when planning interventional trials on endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. Adequately designed observational analytic studies could be considered when recruitment in a RCT appears cumbersome.

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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 16 39%
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 22 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,109,008
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#648
of 1,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,027
of 283,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#16
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 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 1,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 283,279 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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.