↓ Skip to main content

The Palliative Radiotherapy and Inflammation Study (PRAIS) - protocol for a longitudinal observational multicenter study on patients with cancer induced bone pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
The Palliative Radiotherapy and Inflammation Study (PRAIS) - protocol for a longitudinal observational multicenter study on patients with cancer induced bone pain
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12904-018-0362-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ragnhild Habberstad, Trude Camilla Salvesen Frøseth, Nina Aass, Tatiana Abramova, Theo Baas, Siri Tessem Mørkeset, Augusto Caraceni, Barry Laird, Jason W Boland, Romina Rossi, Elena Garcia-Alonso, Hanne Stensheim, Jon Håvard Loge, Marianne Jensen Hjermstad, Ellen Bjerkeset, Asta Bye, Jo-Åsmund Lund, Tora Skeidsvoll Solheim, Ola Magne Vagnildhaug, Cinzia Brunelli, Jan Kristian Damås, Tom Eirik Mollnes, Stein Kaasa, Pål Klepstad

Abstract

Radiation therapy (RT) results in pain relief for about 6 of 10 patients with cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) caused by bone metastases. The high number of non-responders, the long median time from RT to pain response and the risk of adverse effects, makes it important to determine predictors of treatment response. Clinical features such as cancer type, performance status and pain intensity, and biomarkers for osteoclast activity are proposed as predictors of response to RT. However, results are inconsistent and there is a need for better predictors of RT response. A similar argument can be stated for the development of cachexia; there are currently no predictors that can identify patients who will develop cachexia later in the cancer disease trajectory. Experimental and preclinical studies show that pain, depression and cachexia are related to inflammation. However, it is not known if inflammatory biomarkers can predict CIBP, depression or development of cachexia. This multicenter, multinational longitudinal observational study will include 600 adult patients receiving RT for CIBP. Demographic data, clinical variables, osteoclast and inflammatory biomarkers will be assessed before start of RT, and 3, 8, 16, 24 and 52 weeks after last course of RT. The primary aim of the study is to identify potential predictors for pain relief from RT. Secondary aims are to explore potential predictors for development of cachexia, the longitudinal relationship between pain intensity and depression, and if inflammatory biomarkers are associated with changes in pain intensity, cachexia and depression during one-year follow up. The immediate clinical implication of the PRAIS study is to identify potential predictive factors for a RT response on CIBP, and thereby reduce non-efficacious RT. Patient benefits are fewer hospital visits, reduced risk of adverse effects and more individualized pain treatment. The long-term clinical implication of the PRAIS study is to improve the knowledge about inflammation in relation to CIBP, cachexia and depression and potentially identify associations and mechanisms that can be targeted for treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02107664 , date of registration April 8, 2014 (retrospectively registered). The European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, NTNU, Faculty of medicine and Health Sciences, Trondheim, N-7491, Norway.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 24%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Unspecified 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 25 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 25 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,151,332
of 14,513,034 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#267
of 664 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,462
of 273,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,513,034 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 664 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 273,996 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them