↓ Skip to main content

Individualizing endpoints in randomized clinical trials to better inform individual patient care: the TARGET proposal

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Individualizing endpoints in randomized clinical trials to better inform individual patient care: the TARGET proposal
Published in
Critical Care, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1388-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theodore J. Iwashyna, Adam M. Deane

Abstract

In practice, critical care practitioners individualize treatments and goals of care for each patient in light of that patient's acute and chronic pathophysiology, as well as their beliefs and values. Yet critical care researchers routinely measure one endpoint for all patients during randomized clinical trials (RCTs), eschewing any such individualization. More recent methodology work has explored the possibility that enrollment criteria in RCTs can be individualized, as can data analysis plans. Here we propose that the specific endpoints of a RCT can be individualized-that is, different patients within a single RCT might have different secondary endpoints measured. If done rigorously and objectively, based on pre-randomization data, such individualization of endpoints may improve the bedside usefulness of information obtained during a RCT, while perhaps also improving the power and efficiency of any RCT. We discuss the theoretical underpinnings of this proposal in light of related innovations in RCT design such as sliding dichotomies. We discuss what a full elaboration of such individualization would require, and outline a pragmatic initial step towards the use of "individualized secondary endpoints" in a large RCT evaluating optimal enteral nutrition targets in the critically ill.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 20%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,827,275
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,621
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,797
of 381,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#56
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 381,832 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.