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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Impact of lack-of-benefit stopping rules on treatment effect estimates of two-arm multi-stage (TAMS) trials with time to event outcome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-14-23 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Babak Choodari-Oskooei, Mahesh KB Parmar, Patrick Royston, Jack Bowden |
| Abstract |
In 2011, Royston et al. described technical details of a two-arm, multi-stage (TAMS) design. The design enables a trial to be stopped part-way through recruitment if the accumulating data suggests a lack of benefit of the experimental arm. Such interim decisions can be made using data on an available 'intermediate' outcome. At the conclusion of the trial, the definitive outcome is analyzed. Typical intermediate and definitive outcomes in cancer might be progression-free and overall survival, respectively. In TAMS designs, the stopping rule applied at the interim stage(s) affects the sampling distribution of the treatment effect estimator, potentially inducing bias that needs addressing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 3 | 43% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 14% |
| India | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 45% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 1 | 3% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 39% |
| Mathematics | 8 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |