↓ Skip to main content

Challenges and Solutions to Pre- and Post-Randomization Subgroup Analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiology Reports, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Challenges and Solutions to Pre- and Post-Randomization Subgroup Analyses
Published in
Current Cardiology Reports, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11886-014-0531-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manisha Desai, Karen S. Pieper, Ken Mahaffey

Abstract

Subgroup analyses are commonly performed in the clinical trial setting with the purpose of illustrating that the treatment effect was consistent across different patient characteristics or identifying characteristics that should be targeted for treatment. There are statistical issues involved in performing subgroup analyses, however. These have been given considerable attention in the literature for analyses where subgroups are defined by a pre-randomization feature. Although subgroup analyses are often performed with subgroups defined by a post-randomization feature--including analyses that estimate the treatment effect among compliers--discussion of these analyses has been neglected in the clinical literature. Such analyses pose a high risk of presenting biased descriptions of treatment effects. We summarize the challenges of doing all types of subgroup analyses described in the literature. In particular, we emphasize issues with post-randomization subgroup analyses. Finally, we provide guidelines on how to proceed across the spectrum of subgroup analyses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Professor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Mathematics 2 4%
Chemistry 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 November 2014.
All research outputs
#13,066,724
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#483
of 996 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,756
of 235,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 996 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 235,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.