↓ Skip to main content

Cumulative subgroup analysis to reduce waste in clinical research for individualised medicine

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Cumulative subgroup analysis to reduce waste in clinical research for individualised medicine
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0744-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fujian Song, Max O. Bachmann

Abstract

Although subgroup analyses in clinical trials may provide evidence for individualised medicine, their conduct and interpretation remain controversial. Subgroup effect can be defined as the difference in treatment effect across patient subgroups. Cumulative subgroup analysis refers to a series of repeated pooling of subgroup effects after adding data from each of related trials chronologically, to investigate the accumulating evidence for subgroup effects. We illustrated the clinical relevance of cumulative subgroup analysis in two case studies using data from published individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses. Computer simulations were also conducted to examine the statistical properties of cumulative subgroup analysis. In case study 1, an IPD meta-analysis of 10 randomised trials (RCTs) on beta blockers for heart failure reported significant interaction of treatment effects with baseline rhythm. Cumulative subgroup analysis could have detected the subgroup effect 15 years earlier, with five fewer trials and 71% less patients, than the IPD meta-analysis which first reported it. Case study 2 involved an IPD meta-analysis of 11 RCTs on treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension that reported significant subgroup effect by aetiology. Cumulative subgroup analysis could have detected the subgroup effect 6 years earlier, with three fewer trials and 40% less patients than the IPD meta-analysis. Computer simulations have indicated that cumulative subgroup analysis increases the statistical power and is not associated with inflated false positives. To reduce waste of research data, subgroup analyses in clinical trials should be more widely conducted and adequately reported so that cumulative subgroup analyses could be timely performed to inform clinical practice and further research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 27%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 08 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,011,911
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,382
of 3,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,377
of 425,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#41
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 425,827 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.