| Title |
Assessing methods for dealing with treatment switching in randomised controlled trials: a simulation study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-11-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James P Morden, Paul C Lambert, Nicholas Latimer, Keith R Abrams, Allan J Wailoo |
| Abstract |
We investigate methods used to analyse the results of clinical trials with survival outcomes in which some patients switch from their allocated treatment to another trial treatment. These included simple methods which are commonly used in medical literature and may be subject to selection bias if patients switching are not typical of the population as a whole. Methods which attempt to adjust the estimated treatment effect, either through adjustment to the hazard ratio or via accelerated failure time models, were also considered. A simulation study was conducted to assess the performance of each method in a number of different scenarios. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 86 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 22% |
| Mathematics | 12 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 27 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,906,939
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,025
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,058
of 180,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 180,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.