↓ Skip to main content

Joint modelling of time-to-event and multivariate longitudinal outcomes: recent developments and issues

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 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
Joint modelling of time-to-event and multivariate longitudinal outcomes: recent developments and issues
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0212-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Graeme L. Hickey, Pete Philipson, Andrea Jorgensen, Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona

Abstract

Available methods for the joint modelling of longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes have typically only allowed for a single longitudinal outcome and a solitary event time. In practice, clinical studies are likely to record multiple longitudinal outcomes. Incorporating all sources of data will improve the predictive capability of any model and lead to more informative inferences for the purpose of medical decision-making. We reviewed current methodologies of joint modelling for time-to-event data and multivariate longitudinal data including the distributional and modelling assumptions, the association structures, estimation approaches, software tools for implementation and clinical applications of the methodologies. We found that a large number of different models have recently been proposed. Most considered jointly modelling linear mixed models with proportional hazard models, with correlation between multiple longitudinal outcomes accounted for through multivariate normally distributed random effects. So-called current value and random effects parameterisations are commonly used to link the models. Despite developments, software is still lacking, which has translated into limited uptake by medical researchers. Although, in an era of personalized medicine, the value of multivariate joint modelling has been established, researchers are currently limited in their ability to fit these models routinely. We make a series of recommendations for future research needs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 213 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 22%
Student > Master 25 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 6 3%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 47 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 58 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 13%
Engineering 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Computer Science 8 4%
Other 44 21%
Unknown 59 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,682,483
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#739
of 2,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,918
of 334,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#17
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 334,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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.