↓ Skip to main content

A tutorial on sensitivity analyses in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
33 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
342 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
906 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
A tutorial on sensitivity analyses in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-92
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lehana Thabane, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Shiyuan Zhang, Zainab Samaan, Maura Marcucci, Chenglin Ye, Marroon Thabane, Lora Giangregorio, Brittany Dennis, Daisy Kosa, Victoria Borg Debono, Rejane Dillenburg, Vincent Fruci, Monica Bawor, Juneyoung Lee, George Wells, Charles H Goldsmith

Abstract

Sensitivity analyses play a crucial role in assessing the robustness of the findings or conclusions based on primary analyses of data in clinical trials. They are a critical way to assess the impact, effect or influence of key assumptions or variations--such as different methods of analysis, definitions of outcomes, protocol deviations, missing data, and outliers--on the overall conclusions of a study.The current paper is the second in a series of tutorial-type manuscripts intended to discuss and clarify aspects related to key methodological issues in the design and analysis of clinical trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 906 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Japan 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 879 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 173 19%
Student > Master 160 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 152 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 63 7%
Student > Bachelor 54 6%
Other 170 19%
Unknown 134 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 309 34%
Psychology 73 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 5%
Social Sciences 37 4%
Other 197 22%
Unknown 190 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 27 July 2021.
All research outputs
#686,964
of 19,584,195 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#72
of 1,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,289
of 170,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,584,195 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 170,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them