| Title |
A framework: make it useful to guide and improve practice of clinical trial design in smaller populations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-016-0752-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kit C. B. Roes |
| Abstract |
The increased attention to design and analysis of randomised clinical trials in small populations has triggered thinking regarding the most appropriate design methods for a particular clinical research question. Decision schemes and algorithms have been proposed, with varying starting points and foci. Parmar et al. (BMC Medicine 14:183, 2016) proposed a framework designed to assist the clinical trial team in design choices during protocol preparation. Herein, further stimulus is given regarding the extent to which a framework may help change practice for the better, the careful considerations for changing the usual error levels applied and the room for innovation in clinical trial design.Please see related article: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0722-3 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 29% |
| Researcher | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 36% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,744,192
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,996
of 3,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,318
of 415,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#54
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 415,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.