↓ Skip to main content

Perspective on optimizing clinical trials in critical care: how to puzzle out recurrent failures

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Perspective on optimizing clinical trials in critical care: how to puzzle out recurrent failures
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40560-016-0191-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno François, Marc Clavel, Philippe Vignon, Pierre-François Laterre

Abstract

Critical care is a complex field of medicine, especially because of its diversity and unpredictability. Mortality rates of the diseases are usually high and patients are critically ill, admitted in emergency, and often have several overlapping diseases. This makes research in critical care also complex because of patients' conditions and because of the numerous ethical and regulatory requirements and increasing global competition. Many clinical trials in critical care have thus failed and almost no drug has yet been developed to treat intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Learning from the failures, clinical trials must now be optimized. Several aspects can be improved, beginning with the design of studies that should take into account patients' diversity in the ICU. At the site level, selection should reflect more accurately the potential of recruitment. Management of all players that can be involved in the research at a site level should be a priority. Moreover, training should be offered to all staff members, including the youngest. National and international networks are also part of the future as they create a collective synergy potentially improving the efficacy of sites. Finally, computerization is another area that must be further developed with the appropriate tools. Clinical research in the ICU is thus a discipline in its own right that still requires tailored approaches. Changes have to be initiated by the investigators themselves as they know all the specificities of the field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Lecturer 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Computer Science 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 6 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,391,587
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#278
of 516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,087
of 311,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 311,298 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.