↓ Skip to main content

Efficiencies of platform clinical trials: A vision of the future

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Trials, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 1,078)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
26 X users
patent
6 patents

Readers on

mendeley
208 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
Efficiencies of platform clinical trials: A vision of the future
Published in
Clinical Trials, February 2016
DOI 10.1177/1740774515626362
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A "platform trial" is a clinical trial with a single master protocol in which multiple treatments are evaluated simultaneously. Adaptive platform designs offer flexible features such as dropping treatments for futility, declaring one or more treatments superior, or adding new treatments to be tested during the course of a trial. A simulation study explores the efficiencies of various platform trial designs relative to a traditional two-arm strategy. Platform trials can find beneficial treatments with fewer patients, fewer patient failures, less time, and with greater probability of success than a traditional two-arm strategy. In an era of personalized medicine, platform trials provide the innovation needed to efficiently evaluate modern treatments.

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 26 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 208 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 208 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 40 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 13%
Other 18 9%
Student > Master 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 4%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 68 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 19%
Mathematics 26 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 37 18%
Unknown 79 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. 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 13 October 2026.
All research outputs
#784,303
of 34,675,792 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Trials
#13
of 1,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,302
of 336,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Trials
#3
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,675,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,078 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 336,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.