↓ Skip to main content

Updated report on tools to measure outcomes of clinical trials in fragile X syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, June 2017
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 (#26 of 500)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 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.
Title
Updated report on tools to measure outcomes of clinical trials in fragile X syndrome
Published in
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s11689-017-9193-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dejan B. Budimirovic, Elizabeth Berry-Kravis, Craig A. Erickson, Scott S. Hall, David Hessl, Allan L. Reiss, Margaret K. King, Leonard Abbeduto, Walter E. Kaufmann

Abstract

Fragile X syndrome (FXS) has been the neurodevelopmental disorder with the most active translation of preclinical breakthroughs into clinical trials. This process has led to a critical assessment of outcome measures, which resulted in a comprehensive review published in 2013. Nevertheless, the disappointing outcome of several recent phase III drug trials in FXS, and parallel efforts at evaluating behavioral endpoints for trials in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), has emphasized the need for re-assessing outcome measures and revising recommendations for FXS. After performing an extensive database search (PubMed, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s www.ClinicalTrials.gov, etc.) to determine progress since 2013, members of the Working Groups who published the 2013 Report evaluated the available outcome measures for FXS and related neurodevelopmental disorders using the COSMIN grading system of levels of evidence. The latter has also been applied to a British survey of endpoints for ASD. In addition, we also generated an informal classification of outcome measures for use in FXS intervention studies as instruments appropriate to detect shorter- or longer-term changes. To date, a total of 22 double-blind controlled clinical trials in FXS have been identified through www.ClinicalTrials.gov and an extensive literature search. The vast majority of these FDA/NIH-registered clinical trials has been completed between 2008 and 2015 and has targeted the core excitatory/inhibitory imbalance present in FXS and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Limited data exist on reliability and validity for most tools used to measure cognitive, behavioral, and other problems in FXS in these trials and other studies. Overall, evidence for most tools supports a moderate tool quality grading. Data on sensitivity to treatment, currently under evaluation, could improve ratings for some cognitive and behavioral tools. Some progress has also been made at identifying promising biomarkers, mainly on blood-based and neurophysiological measures. Despite the tangible progress in implementing clinical trials in FXS, the increasing data on measurement properties of endpoints, and the ongoing process of new tool development, the vast majority of outcome measures are at the moderate quality level with limited information on reliability, validity, and sensitivity to treatment. This situation is not unique to FXS, since reviews of endpoints for ASD have arrived at similar conclusions. These findings, in conjunction with the predominance of parent-based measures particularly in the behavioral domain, indicate that endpoint development in FXS needs to continue with an emphasis on more objective measures (observational, direct testing, biomarkers) that reflect meaningful improvements in quality of life. A major continuous challenge is the development of measurement tools concurrently with testing drug safety and efficacy in clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 211 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 17%
Student > Master 25 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 64 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 60 28%
Neuroscience 14 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 6%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 71 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 20 August 2017.
All research outputs
#776,571
of 24,321,976 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
#26
of 500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,778
of 321,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,321,976 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 321,146 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.