↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of central adjudication of outcomes and onsite outcome assessment on treatment effect estimates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Comparison of central adjudication of outcomes and onsite outcome assessment on treatment effect estimates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000043.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee Aymar Ndounga Diakou, Ludovic Trinquart, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Caroline Barnes, Amelie Yavchitz, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron

Abstract

Assessment of events by adjudication committees (ACs) is recommended in multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, its usefulness has been questioned. The aim of this systematic review was to compare 1) treatment effect estimates of subjective clinical events assessed by onsite assessors versus by AC, and 2) treatment effect estimates according to the blinding status of the onsite assessor as well as the process used to select events to adjudicate. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Google Scholar (25 August 2015 as the last updated search date), using a combination of terms to retrieve RCTs with commonly used terms to describe ACs. We included all reports of RCTs and the published RCTs included in reviews and meta-analyses that reported the same subjective outcome event assessed by both an onsite assessor and an AC. We extracted the odds ratio (OR) from onsite assessment and the corresponding OR from AC assessment and calculated the ratio of the odds ratios (ROR). A ratio of odds ratios < 1 indicated that onsite assessors generated larger effect estimates in favour of the experimental treatment than ACs. Data from 47 RCTs (275,078 patients) were used in the meta-analysis. We excluded 11 RCTs because of incomplete outcome data to calculate the OR for onsite and AC assessments. On average, there was no difference in treatment effect estimates from onsite assessors and AC (combined ROR: 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; I(2) = 0%, 47 RCTs). The combined ROR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; I(2) = 0%, 35 RCTs) when onsite assessors were blinded; 0.76 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.12, I(2) = 0%, two RCTs) when AC assessed events identified independently from unblinded onsite assessors; and 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.27, I(2) = 0%, 10 RCTs) when AC assessed events identified by unblinded onsite assessors. However, there was a statistically significant interaction between these subgroups (P = 0.03) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, treatment effect estimates for subjective outcome events assessed by onsite assessors did not differ from those assessed by ACs. Results of subgroup analysis showed an interaction according to the blinded status of onsite assessors and the process used to submit data to AC. These results suggest that the use of ACs might be most important when onsite assessors are not blinded and the risk of misclassification is high. Furthermore, research is needed to explore the impact of the different procedures used to select events to adjudicate.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 19 27%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 46%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Psychology 6 8%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 12 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 02 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,195,409
of 15,561,399 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,250
of 11,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,018
of 268,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,561,399 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 268,198 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 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 62% of its contemporaries.