↓ Skip to main content

Of apples and oranges: Lessons learned from the preparation of research protocols for systematic reviews exploring the effectiveness of Specialist Palliative Care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Of apples and oranges: Lessons learned from the preparation of research protocols for systematic reviews exploring the effectiveness of Specialist Palliative Care
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12904-016-0110-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Gaertner, Waldemar Siemens, Barbara A. Daveson, Melinda Smith, Catherine J. Evans, Irene J. Higginson, Gerhild Becker

Abstract

Agreed terminology used in systematic reviews of the effectiveness of specialist palliative care ((S)PC)) is required to ensure consistency and usability and to help guide future similar reviews and the design of clinical trials. During the preparation of protocols for two separate systematic reviews that aimed to assess the effectiveness of SPC, two international research groups collaborated to ensure a high degree of methodological consensus and clarity between reviews. During the collaboration, it became evident that close attention is needed to (i) avoid ambiguity in the definition of advanced illness, (ii) capture the specialist expertise and prerequisites for SPC interventions, and (iii) the multi-professional and multi-dimensional nature of PC. Also, (iv) the exclusion of relevant studies or (v) impracticality of meta-analyses of the obtained data must be avoided. The aim of this article is to present the core issues of the discussion to help future research groups to easily identify potential pitfalls and methodologic necessities. Core issues that arose from the discussion are presented along the research questions according to the PICO process: Population (P): Authors should refer to existing definitions of PC to ensure that, even if the review aims to investigate specific patients (e.g. cancer patients), it is important to make clear that PC is applicable for all life-limiting diseases and not limited to end-of-life or cancer. Intervention (I): PC is a core responsibility of all disciplines (general PC). In contrast, SPC demands further training and expertise. Therefore, core tenets of SPC interventions are that they are (i) multi-professional and (ii) aim at the multi-dimensional nature of suffering. Outcome (O): The main goal of PC is multi-dimensional (quality of life, suffering or distress). Yet, meta-analysis may be complex to conduct due to the heterogeneity of the multi-dimensional outcomes. Therefore, the assessment of uni-dimensional measures such as pain can also provide clinically relevant information that is easier to obtain. Recommendations for future systematic reviews and clinical trials include: (i) Appraise the experience of other research groups who have produced similar systematic reviews or clinical trials. (ii) Include studies that meet the multi-professional and multi-dimensional nature of PC and the specialization requirements for SPC. (iii) Thoroughly weigh relevance and practicability of the primary outcome. Multi-dimensional tools such as quality-of-life questionnaires assess the different dimensions of suffering (the true scope of PC), but uni-dimensional measures such as pain are easier to assess in meta-analyses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Psychology 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 17 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#988,571
of 17,575,102 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#84
of 892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,401
of 269,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,575,102 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 269,973 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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