↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for the management of fatigue in adults with a primary brain tumour

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for the management of fatigue in adults with a primary brain tumour
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011376.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Day, Shlomit Yust-Katz, David Cachia, Jeffrey Wefel, Lior H Katz, Ivo W. Tremont Lukats, Helen Bulbeck, Terri Armstrong, Alasdair G Rooney

Abstract

Fatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of fatigue in this population is unclear. To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for adults with PBT and high levels of fatigue. In March 2016, we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL and checked the reference lists of included studies. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov and contacted major co-operative groups with trials in this area. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention in adults with PBT and fatigue, where fatigue was the primary outcome measure. We restricted inclusion specifically to studies that enrolled only participants with clinically significant levels of fatigue. Three review authors (JD, SYK, DC) independently evaluated search results, extracted data from selected studies and carried out a bias risk assessment. We extracted data on fatigue, cognition, mood, quality of life and adverse events outcomes. We identified nine studies. We excluded eight of these as they did not restrict participation to people with high fatigue. The single eligible trial investigated the use of modafinil compared to placebo. Although this study found a significant improvement over time in the primary outcome of fatigue, the improvement occurred after both modafinil and placebo with no significant difference in response between the two groups. The included trial did not reach its planned recruitment target and therefore may not, in practice, have been adequately powered to detect a difference. The trial was at a low risk of bias across most areas. There was an unclear risk of bias related to the use of mean imputation because the investigators did not analyse the impact of imputation on the results. There was insufficient evidence to draw reliable and generalisable conclusions regarding potential effectiveness or harm of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in people with PBT. More research is needed on how best to treat people with brain tumours with high fatigue.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 21%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Researcher 9 7%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 28 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 34%
Psychology 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 12%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 32 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,656,939
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,321
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,275
of 262,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 262,972 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.