↓ Skip to main content

From concepts, theory, and evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects to methodological approaches: a primer

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
From concepts, theory, and evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects to methodological approaches: a primer
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-185
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard J Willke, Zhiyuan Zheng, Prasun Subedi, Rikard Althin, C Daniel Mullins

Abstract

Implicit in the growing interest in patient-centered outcomes research is a growing need for better evidence regarding how responses to a given intervention or treatment may vary across patients, referred to as heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE). A variety of methods are available for exploring HTE, each associated with unique strengths and limitations. This paper reviews a selected set of methodological approaches to understanding HTE, focusing largely but not exclusively on their uses with randomized trial data. It is oriented for the "intermediate" outcomes researcher, who may already be familiar with some methods, but would value a systematic overview of both more and less familiar methods with attention to when and why they may be used. Drawing from the biomedical, statistical, epidemiological and econometrics literature, we describe the steps involved in choosing an HTE approach, focusing on whether the intent of the analysis is for exploratory, initial testing, or confirmatory testing purposes. We also map HTE methodological approaches to data considerations as well as the strengths and limitations of each approach. Methods reviewed include formal subgroup analysis, meta-analysis and meta-regression, various types of predictive risk modeling including classification and regression tree analysis, series of n-of-1 trials, latent growth and growth mixture models, quantile regression, and selected non-parametric methods. In addition to an overview of each HTE method, examples and references are provided for further reading.By guiding the selection of the methods and analysis, this review is meant to better enable outcomes researchers to understand and explore aspects of HTE in the context of patient-centered outcomes research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 131 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 19%
Researcher 23 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Professor 11 8%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 28%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 10%
Social Sciences 12 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Psychology 8 6%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 29 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 August 2014.
All research outputs
#14,574,585
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,414
of 2,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,669
of 282,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#15
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 282,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.