↓ Skip to main content

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood asthma: a survey of clinicians, parents, and young people

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in childhood asthma: a survey of clinicians, parents, and young people
Published in
Trials, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-13-103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian P Sinha, Ruairi Gallagher, Paula R Williamson, Rosalind L Smyth

Abstract

In clinical trials in childhood asthma, outcomes reflecting short-term disease activity are frequently measured, whilst functional status, quality of life (QoL), and long-term treatment effects are rarely assessed. There is also non-uniformity across studies in the selection and measurement of outcomes within these domains. The development of a core outcome set has the potential to reduce heterogeneity between trials, lead to research that is more likely to have measured relevant outcomes, and enhance the value of evidence synthesis by reducing the risk of outcome reporting bias and ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. Paediatricians and specialist nurses, identified through the British Paediatric Respiratory Society, completed a two-round Delphi survey. Separate cohorts of parents of children younger than 18 years, recruited in clinics, participated in each round. Young people with asthma, aged at least 13 years, participated in the first round. Outcomes were identified separately for preschool and school-aged children.We identified outcomes considered important in routine clinical assessment by clinicians and parents/young people. In round 1, 46 clinicians suggested outcomes they considered important when deciding whether to adjust a child's asthma therapy regime, and 49 parents/young people were asked, using open questions, how they judged whether their child's (for young people, their own) asthma therapy was appropriate. Two researchers independently classified responses into appropriate, corresponding outcomes.In round 2, 43 clinicians and 50 parents scored, from 0-4, the importance of each outcome suggested by at least 10 % of round 1 responders and selected the three most important. The most important outcomes, when making shared decisions about regular therapies for school-aged and preschool children with asthma, were daytime and nocturnal symptoms, exacerbations, QoL, and mortality. Results from parents and clinicians were generally concordant, but parents placed more emphasis on long-term treatment effects. We have developed a methodology to identify outcomes of most relevance to clinicians, parents, and young people when evaluating regularly administered therapies for asthma. Daytime and nocturnal symptoms, exacerbations, QoL, and mortality are particularly important outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of regular therapies for children with asthma.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 97 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 20%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Master 12 12%
Other 7 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 24 23%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 22 21%

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 30 December 2018.
All research outputs
#5,436,085
of 20,420,776 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,016
of 5,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,768
of 105,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,420,776 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 5,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 105,886 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 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