↓ Skip to main content

Trial Designs for Personalizing Cancer Care: A Systematic Review and Classification

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Cancer Research, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Trial Designs for Personalizing Cancer Care: A Systematic Review and Classification
Published in
Clinical Cancer Research, September 2013
DOI 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-3722
Pubmed ID
Authors

Parvin Tajik, Aleiko H. Zwinderman, Ben W. Mol, Patrick M. Bossuyt

Abstract

There is an increasing interest in the evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers for personalizing cancer care. The literature on the trial designs for evaluation of these markers is diverse and there is no consensus in the classification or nomenclature. We set this study to review the literature systematically, to identify the proposed trial designs, and to develop a classification scheme. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Methodology Register, and MathSciNet up to January 2013 for articles describing these trial designs. In each eligible article, we identified the trial designs presented and extracted the term used for labeling the design, components of patient flow (marker status of eligible participants, intervention, and comparator), study questions, and analysis plan. Our search strategy resulted in 88 eligible articles, wherein 315 labels had been used by authors in presenting trial designs; 134 of these were unique. By analyzing patient flow components, we could classify the 134 unique design labels into four basic patient flow categories, which we labeled with the most frequently used term: single-arm, enrichment, randomize-all, and biomarker-strategy designs. A fifth category consists of combinations of the other four patient flow categories. Our review showed that a considerable number of labels has been proposed for trial designs evaluating prognostic and predictive biomarkers which, based on patient flow elements, can be classified into five basic categories. The classification system proposed here could help clinicians and researchers in designing and interpreting trials evaluating predictive biomarkers, and could reduce confusion in labeling and reporting.

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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
United States 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 73 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Other 9 12%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Mathematics 7 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 17 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 September 2015.
All research outputs
#6,072,795
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Cancer Research
#5,662
of 12,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,944
of 198,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Cancer Research
#76
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 198,457 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.