↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of randomised trials with long-term follow-up

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Analysis of randomised trials with long-term follow-up
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0499-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert D. Herbert, Jessica Kasza, Kari Bø

Abstract

Randomised trials with long-term follow-up can provide estimates of the long-term effects of health interventions. However, analysis of long-term outcomes in randomised trials may be complicated by problems with the administration of treatment such as non-adherence, treatment switching and co-intervention, and problems obtaining outcome measurements arising from loss to follow-up and death of participants. Methods for dealing with these issues that involve conditioning on post-randomisation variables are unsatisfactory because they may involve the comparison of non-exchangeable groups and generate estimates that do not have a valid causal interpretation. We describe approaches to analysis that potentially provide estimates of causal effects when such issues arise. Brief descriptions are provided of the use of instrumental variable and propensity score methods in trials with imperfect adherence, marginal structural models and g-estimation in trials with treatment switching, mixed longitudinal models and multiple imputation in trials with loss to follow-up, and a sensitivity analysis that can be used when trial follow-up is truncated by death or other events. Clinical trialists might consider these methods both at the design and analysis stages of randomised trials with long-term follow-up.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 28%
Student > Master 6 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Computer Science 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 6 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,280,543
of 13,755,459 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#208
of 1,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,279
of 272,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,755,459 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 272,123 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them