| Title |
Clinical Trial Design in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatric Drugs, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40272-017-0244-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen J. Balevic, Mara L. Becker, Michael Cohen-Wolkowiez, Laura E. Schanberg |
| Abstract |
Randomized clinical trials provide the gold standard evidence base to guide clinical practice. Despite major advances in trial design, pediatric clinical trials are still difficult to perform and pose unique challenges, including the need to consider the impact of developmental changes in trial design. Advances within pediatric rheumatology combined with the need to comply with legislative requirements have driven new approaches to performing pediatric clinical trials such as utilization of large research networks, incorporation of patient and family stakeholders in the planning and implementation of clinical trials, and the development of novel trial designs. The expansion of available biological therapeutics that now includes biosimilar drugs highlights the important and difficult balance of providing new and cost-effective drugs to children while ensuring safety in a vulnerable population. Future advances in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) clinical trials will likely be the application of precision medicine based on biologic, rather than phenotypic, classification of JIA, with improved understanding of pediatric clinical pharmacology. Clinical trial simulations and comparative effectiveness studies are important supplements to traditional clinical trials, permitting efficient studies and results that are more generalizable. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 35% |
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 20 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,465,171
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Drugs
#406
of 558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,353
of 317,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Drugs
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 558 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 317,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.