↓ Skip to main content

Assessing risk/benefit for trials using preclinical evidence: a proposal

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Ethics, October 2015
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 (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Assessing risk/benefit for trials using preclinical evidence: a proposal
Published in
Journal of Medical Ethics, October 2015
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2015-102882
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Kimmelman, Valerie Henderson

Abstract

Moral evaluation of risk/benefit in early phase studies requires assessing the clinical promise of a candidate intervention using preclinical evidence. Yet, there is little to guide ethics committees, investigators, sponsors or other stakeholders morally charged with making these assessments ('evaluators'). In what follows, we draw on published guidelines for preclinical study design to develop a structured process for assessing the clinical promise of new interventions. In the first step, evaluators gather all relevant preclinical studies, assess the magnitude of treatment effects and determine clinical promise in light of various threats to valid clinical inference. In the second step, evaluators adjust the assessments of clinical promise from preclinical studies by examining how other agents in the same reference class-and supported by similar evidence-have fared in clinical development. Assessments of clinical promise can then be fed into the moral evaluation of risk and benefit in early phase trials. Though our approach has limitations, it offers a systematic and transparent method for assessing risk/benefit in early phase trials of novel interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 13 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,945,826
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#1,452
of 3,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,393
of 279,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#16
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,414 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 279,229 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.