Censoring is increasingly appreciated as a potential bias affecting estimates of progression free survival (PFS) in randomised trials. In this commentary, we explore the central assumption of censoring. Censored patients are considered no more or less likely to undergo the event of interest than those who remain in the analysis. Instead however, if one makes alternate assumptions, that censored patients are different than those who remain on the trial, estimates of PFS change. Using the example of the recent BOLERO-2 trial of exemestane and everolimus, we show that by altering the assumptions for censoring, the major conclusions of clinical trials may change. As such, the number of censored patients at each time interval should be routinely reported in randomised trials to better understand the implications of censoring.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 December 2022.
All research outputs
#6,489,242
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Cancer (1965)
#2,361
of 8,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,399
of 299,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Cancer (1965)
#30
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. 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 299,887 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 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 73% of its contemporaries.
