↓ Skip to main content

Assessing methods for dealing with treatment switching in randomised controlled trials: a simulation study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 60 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 25%
Student > Master 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 27%
Mathematics 12 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 10 16%

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
#3,144,905
of 11,868,523 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#421
of 1,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,552
of 93,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,868,523 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. 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 93,821 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 71% of its contemporaries.