↓ Skip to main content

Measurement tools of resource use and quality of life in clinical trials for dementia or cognitive impairment interventions: protocol for a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2017
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Measurement tools of resource use and quality of life in clinical trials for dementia or cognitive impairment interventions: protocol for a scoping review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0418-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fan Yang, Piers Dawes, Iracema Leroi, Brenda Gannon

Abstract

Dementia and cognitive impairment could severely impact patients' life and bring heavy burden to patients, caregivers and societies. Some interventions are suggested for the older patients with these conditions to help them live well, but economic evaluation is needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Trial-based economic evaluation is an ideal method; however, little is known about the tools used to collect data of resource use and quality of life alongside the trials. Therefore, the aim of this review is to identify and describe the resource use and quality of life instruments in clinical trials of interventions for older patients with dementia or cognitive impairment. We will perform a search in main electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science and Scopus) using the key terms or their synonyms: older, dementia, cognitive impairment, cost, quality of life, intervention and tools. After removing duplicates, two independent reviewers will screen each entry for eligibility, initially by title and abstract, then by full-text. A hand search of the references of included articles and general search, e.g. Google Scholar, will also be conducted to identify potential relevant studies. All disagreements will be resolved by discussion or consultation with a third reviewer if necessary. Data analysis will be completed and reported in a narrative review. This review will identify the instruments used in clinical trials to collect resource use and quality of life data for dementia or cognitive impairment interventions. This will help to guide the study design of future trial-based economic evaluation of these interventions. PROSPERO CRD42016038495.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Other 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 20 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,099,397
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#362
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,452
of 418,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#11
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 418,939 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 73% of its contemporaries.