The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, June 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-10-43 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicole B Gabler, Naihua Duan, Diana Liao, Joann G Elmore, Theodore G Ganiats, Richard L Kravitz |
| Abstract |
Some patients will experience more or less benefit from treatment than the averages reported from clinical trials; such variation in therapeutic outcome is termed heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Identifying HTE is necessary to individualize treatment. The degree to which heterogeneity is sought and analyzed correctly in the general medical literature is unknown. We undertook this literature sample to track the use of HTE analyses over time, examine the appropriateness of the statistical methods used, and explore the predictors of such analyses. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 25% |
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 85 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 22% |
| Unknown | 15 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,172,815
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#14
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,938
of 124,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one scored the same or higher as 31 of them.
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 124,546 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.