↓ Skip to main content

Experimental designs for small randomised clinical trials: an algorithm for choice

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Experimental designs for small randomised clinical trials: an algorithm for choice
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-8-48
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Cornu, Behrouz Kassai, Roland Fisch, Catherine Chiron, Corinne Alberti, Renzo Guerrini, Anna Rosati, Gerard Pons, Harm Tiddens, Sylvie Chabaud, Daan Caudri, Clément Ballot, Polina Kurbatova, Anne-Charlotte Castellan, Agathe Bajard, Patrice Nony, and the CRESim & Epi-CRESim Project Groups

Abstract

Small clinical trials are necessary when there are difficulties in recruiting enough patients for conventional frequentist statistical analyses to provide an appropriate answer. These trials are often necessary for the study of rare diseases as well as specific study populations e.g. children. It has been estimated that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 rare diseases that cover a broad range of diseases and patients. In the European Union these diseases affect up to 30 million people, with about 50% of those affected being children. Therapies for treating these rare diseases need their efficacy and safety evaluated but due to the small number of potential trial participants, a standard randomised controlled trial is often not feasible. There are a number of alternative trial designs to the usual parallel group design, each of which offers specific advantages, but they also have specific limitations. Thus the choice of the most appropriate design is not simple.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 157 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 15%
Student > Master 19 12%
Other 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 36 22%
Unknown 19 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 43%
Mathematics 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 5%
Psychology 7 4%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 28 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#2,441
of 3,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,735
of 210,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#41
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 210,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.