↓ Skip to main content

Are large clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma justified?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Are large clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma justified?
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12891-018-2029-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheila Sprague, Paul Tornetta, Gerard P. Slobogean, Nathan N. O’Hara, Paula McKay, Brad Petrisor, Kyle J. Jeray, Emil H. Schemitsch, David Sanders, Mohit Bhandari, on behalf of the FLOW Investigators

Abstract

The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the necessity of large clinical trials using FLOW trial data. The FLOW pilot study and definitive trial were factorial trials evaluating the effect of different irrigation solutions and pressures on re-operation. To explore treatment effects over time, we analyzed data from the pilot and definitive trial in increments of 250 patients until the final sample size of 2447 patients was reached. At each increment we calculated the relative risk (RR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment effect, and compared the results that would have been reported at the smaller enrolments with those seen in the final, adequately powered study. The pilot study analysis of 89 patients and initial incremental enrolments in the FLOW definitive trial favored low pressure compared to high pressure (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.75-3.04; RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.60-3.23, respectively), which is in contradiction to the final enrolment, which found no difference between high and low pressure (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81-1.33). In the soap versus saline comparison, the FLOW pilot study suggested that re-operation rate was similar in both the soap and saline groups (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.50-1.92), whereas the FLOW definitive trial found that the re-operation rate was higher in the soap treatment arm (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.04-1.57). Our findings suggest that studies with smaller sample sizes would have led to erroneous conclusions in the management of open fracture wounds. NCT01069315 (FLOW Pilot Study) Date of Registration: February 17, 2010, NCT00788398 (FLOW Definitive Trial) Date of Registration: November 10, 2008.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 16%
Other 3 12%
Professor 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 13 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,508,366
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,491
of 4,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,377
of 326,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#34
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 326,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.