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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Considerations for improving assay sensitivity in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pain (03043959), April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pain.2012.03.003 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert H. Dworkin, Dennis C. Turk, Sarah Peirce-Sandner, Laurie B. Burke, John T. Farrar, Ian Gilron, Mark P. Jensen, Nathaniel P. Katz, Srinivasa N. Raja, Bob A. Rappaport, Michael C. Rowbotham, Misha-Miroslav Backonja, Ralf Baron, Nicholas Bellamy, Zubin Bhagwagar, Ann Costello, Penney Cowan, Weikai Christopher Fang, Sharon Hertz, Gary W. Jay, Roderick Junor, Robert D. Kerns, Rosemary Kerwin, Ernest A. Kopecky, Dmitri Lissin, Richard Malamut, John D. Markman, Michael P. McDermott, Catherine Munera, Linda Porter, Christine Rauschkolb, Andrew S.C. Rice, Cristina Sampaio, Vladimir Skljarevski, Kenneth Sommerville, Brett R. Stacey, Ilona Steigerwald, Jeffrey Tobias, Ann Marie Trentacosti, Ajay D. Wasan, George A. Wells, Jim Williams, James Witter, Dan Ziegler |
| Abstract |
A number of pharmacologic treatments examined in recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have failed to show statistically significant superiority to placebo in conditions in which their efficacy had previously been demonstrated. Assuming the validity of previous evidence of efficacy and the comparability of the patients and outcome measures in these studies, such results may be a consequence of limitations in the ability of these RCTs to demonstrate the benefits of efficacious analgesic treatments vs placebo ("assay sensitivity"). Efforts to improve the assay sensitivity of analgesic trials could reduce the rate of falsely negative trials of efficacious medications and improve the efficiency of analgesic drug development. Therefore, an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting was convened in which the assay sensitivity of chronic pain trials was reviewed and discussed. On the basis of this meeting and subsequent discussions, the authors recommend consideration of a number of patient, study design, study site, and outcome measurement factors that have the potential to affect the assay sensitivity of RCTs of chronic pain treatments. Increased attention to and research on methodological aspects of clinical trials and their relationships with assay sensitivity have the potential to provide the foundation for an evidence-based approach to the design of analgesic clinical trials and expedite the identification of analgesic treatments with improved efficacy and safety. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 186 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 39 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 11% |
| Other | 21 | 11% |
| Professor | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 45 | 23% |
| Unknown | 30 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 77 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 9% |
| Psychology | 13 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 32 | 16% |
| Unknown | 39 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 August 2023.
All research outputs
#3,274,821
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Pain (03043959)
#1,710
of 6,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,284
of 173,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pain (03043959)
#13
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,470 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 173,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.