| Title |
Simulations for designing and interpreting intervention trials in infectious diseases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-0985-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Elizabeth Halloran, Kari Auranen, Sarah Baird, Nicole E. Basta, Steven E. Bellan, Ron Brookmeyer, Ben S. Cooper, Victor DeGruttola, James P. Hughes, Justin Lessler, Eric T. Lofgren, Ira M. Longini, Jukka-Pekka Onnela, Berk Özler, George R. Seage, Thomas A. Smith, Alessandro Vespignani, Emilia Vynnycky, Marc Lipsitch |
| Abstract |
Interventions in infectious diseases can have both direct effects on individuals who receive the intervention as well as indirect effects in the population. In addition, intervention combinations can have complex interactions at the population level, which are often difficult to adequately assess with standard study designs and analytical methods. Herein, we urge the adoption of a new paradigm for the design and interpretation of intervention trials in infectious diseases, particularly with regard to emerging infectious diseases, one that more accurately reflects the dynamics of the transmission process. In an increasingly complex world, simulations can explicitly represent transmission dynamics, which are critical for proper trial design and interpretation. Certain ethical aspects of a trial can also be quantified using simulations. Further, after a trial has been conducted, simulations can be used to explore the possible explanations for the observed effects. Much is to be gained through a multidisciplinary approach that builds collaborations among experts in infectious disease dynamics, epidemiology, statistical science, economics, simulation methods, and the conduct of clinical trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 13 | 30% |
| United States | 7 | 16% |
| Italy | 3 | 7% |
| India | 2 | 5% |
| Papua New Guinea | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 49% |
| Scientists | 19 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 21% |
| Mathematics | 12 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 27 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 06 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,558,511
of 25,651,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,102
of 4,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,904
of 450,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#17
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,651,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 450,810 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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 64% of its contemporaries.