↓ Skip to main content

Patient-Centeredness in the Design of Clinical Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Value in Health (Elsevier Science), May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
52 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patient-Centeredness in the Design of Clinical Trials
Published in
Value in Health (Elsevier Science), May 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2014.02.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Daniel Mullins, Joseph Vandigo, Zhiyuan Zheng, Paul Wicks

Abstract

Evidence from clinical trials should contribute to informed decision making and a learning health care system. People frequently, however, find participating in clinical trials meaningless or disempowering. Moreover, people often do not incorporate trial results directly into their decision making. The lack of patient centeredness in clinical trials may be partially addressed through trial design. For example, Bayesian adaptive trials designed to adjust in a prespecified manner to changes in clinical practice could motivate people and their health care providers to view clinical trials as more applicable to real-world clinical decisions. The way in which clinical trials are designed can transform the evidence generation process to be more patient centered, providing people with an incentive to participate or continue participating in clinical trials. To achieve the transformation to patient-centeredness in clinical trial decisions, however, there is a need for transparent and reliable methods and education of trial investigators and site personnel.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 4%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Spain 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 126 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 19%
Student > Master 25 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Other 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 30 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 37 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 16 March 2021.
All research outputs
#912,903
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#67
of 4,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,682
of 241,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#1
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 241,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.