| Title |
Clinical trial simulation to evaluate power to compare the antiviral effectiveness of two hepatitis C protease inhibitors using nonlinear mixed effect models: a viral kinetic approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-60 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cédric Laouénan, Jeremie Guedj, France Mentré |
| Abstract |
Models of hepatitis C virus (HCV) kinetics are increasingly used to estimate and to compare in vivo drug's antiviral effectiveness of new potent anti-HCV agents. Viral kinetic parameters can be estimated using non-linear mixed effect models (NLMEM). Here we aimed to evaluate the performance of this approach to precisely estimate the parameters and to evaluate the type I errors and the power of the Wald test to compare the antiviral effectiveness between two treatment groups when data are sparse and/or a large proportion of viral load (VL) are below the limit of detection (BLD). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 38% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 April 2013.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,976
of 2,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,332
of 196,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#27
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 196,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.