↓ Skip to main content

Inverse probability weighting to estimate causal effect of a singular phase in a multiphase randomized clinical trial for multiple myeloma

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Inverse probability weighting to estimate causal effect of a singular phase in a multiphase randomized clinical trial for multiple myeloma
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0253-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annalisa Pezzi, Michele Cavo, Annibale Biggeri, Elena Zamagni, Oriana Nanni

Abstract

Randomization procedure in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) permits an unbiased estimation of causal effects. However, in clinical practice, differential compliance between arms may cause a strong violation of randomization balance and biased treatment effect among those who comply. We evaluated the effect of the consolidation phase on disease-free survival of patients with multiple myeloma in an RCT designed for another purpose, adjusting for potential selection bias due to different compliance to previous treatment phases. We computed two propensity scores (PS) to model two different selection processes: the first to undergo autologous stem cell transplantation, the second to begin consolidation therapy. Combined stabilized inverse probability treatment weights were then introduced in the Cox model to estimate the causal effect of consolidation therapy miming an ad hoc RCT protocol. We found that the effect of consolidation therapy was restricted to the first 18 months of the phase (HR: 0.40, robust 95 % CI: 0.17-0.96), after which it disappeared. PS-based methods could be a complementary approach within an RCT context to evaluate the effect of the last phase of a complex therapeutic strategy, adjusting for potential selection bias caused by different compliance to the previous phases of the therapeutic scheme, in order to simulate an ad hoc randomization procedure. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01134484 May 28, 2010 (retrospectively registered) EudraCT: 2005-003723-39 December 17, 2008 (retrospectively registered).

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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 27%
Mathematics 5 10%
Psychology 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Chemistry 2 4%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 13 25%
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 20 January 2021.
All research outputs
#6,986,040
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,038
of 2,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,833
of 313,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#16
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 313,007 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 56% of its contemporaries.