↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Which and How Many Patients Should Be Included in Randomised Controlled Trials to Demonstrate the Efficacy of Biologics in Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome?
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0133907
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The goal of this study was to determine how the choice of the primary endpoint influenced sample size estimates in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS). We reviewed all studies evaluating biotechnological therapies in pSS to identify their inclusion criteria and primary endpoints. Then, in a large cohort (ASSESS), we determined the proportion of patients who would be included in RCTs using various inclusion criteria sets. Finally, we used the population of a large randomised therapeutic trial in pSS (TEARS) to assess the impact of various primary objectives and endpoints on estimated sample sizes. These analyses were performed only for the endpoints indicating greater efficacy of rituximab compared to the placebo. We identified 18 studies. The most common inclusion criteria were short disease duration; systemic involvement; high mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for dryness, pain, and fatigue; and biological evidence of activity. In the ASSESS cohort, 35 percent of patients had recent-onset disease (lower than 4 years), 68 percent systemic manifestations, 68 percent high scores on two of three VASs, and 52 percent biological evidence of activity. The primary endpoints associated with the smallest sample sizes (nlower than 200) were a VAS dryness score improvement higher to 20 mm by week 24 or variable improvements (10, 20, or 30 mm) in fatigue VAS by week 6 or 16. For patients with systemic manifestations, the ESSDAI change may be the most logical endpoint, as it reflects all domains of disease activity. However, the ESSDAI did not improve significantly with rituximab therapy in the TEARS study. Ultrasound score improvement produced the smallest sample size estimate in the TEARS study. This study provides valuable information for designing future RCTs on the basis of previously published studies. Previous RCTs used inclusion criteria that selected a small part of the entire pSS population. The endpoint was usually based on VASs assessing patient complaints. In contrast to VAS dryness cut-offs, VAS fatigue cut-offs did not affect estimated sample sizes. SGUS improvement produced the smallest estimated sample size. Further studies are required to validate standardised SGUS modalities and assessment criteria. Thus, researchers should strive to develop a composite primary endpoint and to determine its best cut-off and assessment time point.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Other 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 17 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 25 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,825,310
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#124,026
of 194,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,264
of 268,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,390
of 5,752 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,843 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 268,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,752 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.