↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

How to read a clinical trial paper: a lesson in basic trial statistics.

Overview of attention for article published in Gastroenterology & Hepatology, April 2012
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 (#11 of 496)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
221 X users
facebook
14 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
Title
How to read a clinical trial paper: a lesson in basic trial statistics.
Published in
Gastroenterology & Hepatology, April 2012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shail M Govani, Peter D R Higgins

Abstract

While the number of clinical trials performed yearly is increasing, the application of these results to individual patients is quite difficult. This article reviews key portions of the process of applying research results to clinical practice. The first step involves defining the study population and determining whether these patients are similar to the patients seen in clinical practice in terms of demographics, disease type, and disease severity. The dropout rate should be compared between the different study arms. Design aspects, including randomization and blinding, should be checked for signs of bias. When comparing studies, clinicians should be aware that the outcomes being studied may vary greatly from one study to another, and some outcomes are much more reliable and valuable than others. The definition of clinical response should also be scrutinized, as it may be too lenient. Surrogate outcomes should be viewed cautiously, and their use should be well justified. Clinicians should also note that statistical significance, as defined by a P-value cutoff, may be the result of a large sample size rather than a clinically significant difference. The treatment effect can be estimated by calculating the number needed to treat, which will demonstrate whether changes in clinical practice are worthwhile. Finally, this article discusses some common issues that can arise with figures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 221 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 160 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 15%
Researcher 23 14%
Other 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Other 43 25%
Unknown 15 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 7%
Other 39 23%
Unknown 19 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 164. 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 14 February 2024.
All research outputs
#252,795
of 25,774,185 outputs
Outputs from Gastroenterology & Hepatology
#11
of 496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,024
of 173,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gastroenterology & Hepatology
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,774,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 173,783 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.