↓ Skip to main content

Reducing selection bias in case-control studies from rare disease registries

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Reducing selection bias in case-control studies from rare disease registries
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2011
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-6-61
Pubmed ID
Authors

J Alexander Cole, John S Taylor, Thomas N Hangartner, Neal J Weinreb, Pramod K Mistry, Aneal Khan

Abstract

In clinical research of rare diseases, where small patient numbers and disease heterogeneity limit study design options, registries are a valuable resource for demographic and outcome information. However, in contrast to prospective, randomized clinical trials, the observational design of registries is prone to introduce selection bias and negatively impact the validity of data analyses. The objective of the study was to demonstrate the utility of case-control matching and the risk-set method in order to control bias in data from a rare disease registry. Data from the International Collaborative Gaucher Group (ICGG) Gaucher Registry were used as an example.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 28%
Researcher 12 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Mathematics 6 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 8 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#12,108,962
of 20,710,163 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,233
of 2,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,523
of 131,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#22
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,710,163 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 131,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.