Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Pediatric Blood & Ca...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Pediatric Blood & Cancer
Article . 2011 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

A revision of the intensity of treatment rating scale: Classifying the intensity of pediatric cancer treatment

Authors: Anne E, Kazak; Matthew C, Hocking; Richard F, Ittenbach; Anna T, Meadows; Wendy, Hobbie; Branlyn Werba, DeRosa; Ann, Leahey; +2 Authors

A revision of the intensity of treatment rating scale: Classifying the intensity of pediatric cancer treatment

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundWe previously developed a reliable and valid method for classifying the intensity of pediatric cancer treatment. The Intensity of Treatment Rating Scale (ITR‐2.0) 1 classifies treatments into four operationally defined levels of intensity and is completed by pediatric oncology specialists based on diagnosis, stage, and treatment data from the medical record. Experience with the ITR‐2.0 and recent changes in treatment protocols indicated the need for a minor revision and revalidation.MethodsFive criterion raters reviewed the prior items, independently proposing additions and/or changes in the classification of diseases/treatments. Subsequent to a group discussion of the proposed changes, a revised 43‐item ITR was evaluated. Pediatric oncologists (n = 47) completed a two‐part online questionnaire. Validity of the classifications was determined by the oncologists classifying each disease/treatment into one of the four levels of intensity. Inter‐rater reliability was calculated by having each oncologist classify the treatments of 12 sample patients using the new version which we call the ITR‐3.ResultsAgreement between median ratings of the 43 items for the pediatric oncologists and the criterion raters was high (r = 0.88). The median of the raters was either identical (81%) with the criterion ratings or discrepant by one level. Inter‐rater reliability was very high when using the ITR‐3 to classify 12 sample patients, with a median agreement of 0.90 and an intraclass correlation coefficient (rICC = 0.86).ConclusionsWith these minor modifications and updates, the ITR‐3 remains a reliable and valid method for classifying pediatric oncology treatment protocols. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2012; 59: 96–99. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords

Male, Adolescent, Child, Preschool, Neoplasms, Surveys and Questionnaires, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Humans, Female

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    212
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 1%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
212
Top 1%
Top 1%
Top 10%
bronze
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research