| Title |
Designing pharmaceutical trials for sarcopenia in frail older adults: EU/US task force recommendations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The journal of nutrition, health & aging, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12603-013-0362-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B. Vellas, M. Pahor, T. Manini, D. Rooks, J.M. Guralnik, J. Morley, S. Studenski, W. Evans, C. Asbrand, R. Fariello, S. Pereira, Y. Rolland, G. Abellan Van Kan, M. Cesari, W.M.C. Chumlea, R. Fielding |
| Abstract |
An international task force of academic and industry leaders in sarcopenia research met on December 5, 2012 in Orlando, Florida to develop guidelines for designing and executing randomized clinical trials of sarcopenia treatments. The Task Force reviewed results from previous trials in related disease areas to extract lessons relevant to future sarcopenia trials, including practical issues regarding the design and conduct of trials in elderly populations, the definition of appropriate target populations, and the selection of screening tools, outcome measures, and biomarkers. They discussed regulatory issues, the challenges posed by trials of different types of interventions, and the need for standardization and harmonization. The Task Force concluded with recommendations for advancing the field toward better clinical trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 13% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 August 2013.
All research outputs
#23,084,818
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#1,871
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,157
of 210,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 210,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.