↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of nuisance parameters in pediatric versus adult randomized trials: a meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Comparison of nuisance parameters in pediatric versus adult randomized trials: a meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0456-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Vandermeer, Ingeborg van der Tweel, Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide, Stephanie S. Weinreich, Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Dirk Bassler, Ricardo M. Fernandes, Lisa Askie, Haroon Saloojee, Paola Baiardi, Susan S. Ellenberg, Johanna H. van der Lee

Abstract

We wished to compare the nuisance parameters of pediatric vs. adult randomized-trials (RCTs) and determine if the latter can be used in sample size computations of the former. In this meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation we examined meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic-Reviews, with at least one pediatric-RCT and at least one adult-RCT. Within each meta-analysis of binary efficacy-outcomes, we calculated the pooled-control-group event-rate (CER) across separately all pediatric and adult-trials, using random-effect models and subsequently calculated the control-group event-rate risk-ratio (CER-RR) of the pooled-pediatric-CERs vs. adult-CERs. Within each meta-analysis with continuous outcomes we calculated the pooled-control-group effect standard deviation (CE-SD) across separately all pediatric and adult-trials and subsequently calculated the CE-SD-ratio of the pooled-pediatric-CE-SDs vs. adult-CE-SDs. We then calculated across all meta-analyses the pooled-CER-RRs and pooled-CE-SD-ratios (primary endpoints) and the pooled-magnitude of effect-sizes of CER-RRs and CE-SD-ratios using REMs. A ratio < 1 indicates that pediatric trials have smaller nuisance parameters than adult trials. We analyzed 208 meta-analyses (135 for binary-outcomes, 73 for continuous-outcomes). For binary outcomes, pediatric-RCTs had on average 10% smaller CERs than adult-RCTs (summary-CE-RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.98). For mortality outcomes the summary-CE-RR was 0.48 (95% CIs: 0.31, 0.74). For continuous outcomes, pediatric-RCTs had on average 26% smaller CE-SDs than adult-RCTs (summary-CE-SD-ratio: 0.74). Clinically relevant differences in nuisance parameters between pediatric and adult trials were detected. These differences have implications for design of future studies. Extrapolation of nuisance parameters for sample-sizes calculations from adult-trials to pediatric-trials should be cautiously done.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 21%
Unspecified 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 36%
Unspecified 2 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%

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 22 January 2018.
All research outputs
#7,443,095
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,090
of 2,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,032
of 443,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#30
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 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 2,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. 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 443,289 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 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.