↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Interpreting patient-reported outcomes from clinical trials in COPD: a discussion

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Interpreting patient-reported outcomes from clinical trials in COPD: a discussion
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/copd.s117378
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Jones, Stephen Rennard, Maggie Tabberer, John H. Riley, Mitra Vahdati-Bolouri, Neil Barnes

Abstract

One of the challenges faced by the practising physician is the interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials and the relevance of such data to their patients. This is especially true when caring for patients with progressive diseases such as COPD. In an attempt to incorporate the patient perspective, many clinical trials now include assessments of PROs. These are formalized methods of capturing patient-centered information. Given the importance of PROs in evaluating the potential utility of an intervention for a patient with COPD, it is important that physicians are able to critically interpret (and critique) the results derived from them. Therefore, in this paper, a series of questions is posed for the practising physician to consider when reviewing the treatment effectiveness as assessed by PROs. The focus is on the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for worked examples, but the principles apply equally to other symptom-based questionnaires. A number of different ways of presenting PRO data are discussed, including the concept of the minimum clinically important difference, whether there is a ceiling effect to PRO results, and the strengths and weaknesses of responder analyses. Using a worked example, the value of including a placebo arm in a study is illustrated, and the influence of the study on PRO results is considered, in terms of the design, patient withdrawal, and the selection of the study population. For the practising clinician, the most important consideration is the importance of individualization of treatment (and of treatment goals). To inform such treatment, clinicians need to critically review PRO data. The hope is that the questions posed here will help to build a framework for this critical review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Student > Master 6 19%
Other 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,548,529
of 13,232,126 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#470
of 1,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,544
of 373,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#32
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,232,126 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,611 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 373,607 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 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 64% of its contemporaries.