↓ Skip to main content

Adaptive designs undertaken in clinical research: a review of registered clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Adaptive designs undertaken in clinical research: a review of registered clinical trials
Published in
Trials, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1273-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabella Hatfield, Annabel Allison, Laura Flight, Steven A. Julious, Munyaradzi Dimairo

Abstract

Adaptive designs have the potential to improve efficiency in the evaluation of new medical treatments in comparison to traditional fixed sample size designs. However, they are still not widely used in practice in clinical research. Little research has been conducted to investigate what adaptive designs are being undertaken. This review highlights the current state of registered adaptive designs and their characteristics. The review looked at phase II, II/III and III trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 29 February 2000 to 1 June 2014, supplemented with trials from the National Institute for Health Research register and known adaptive trials. A range of adaptive design search terms were applied to the trials extracted from each database. Characteristics of the adaptive designs were then recorded including funder, therapeutic area and type of adaptation. The results in the paper suggest that the use of adaptive designs has increased. They seem to be most often used in phase II trials and in oncology. In phase III trials, the most popular form of adaptation is the group sequential design. The review failed to capture all trials with adaptive designs, which suggests that the reporting of adaptive designs, such as in clinical trials registers, needs much improving. We recommend that clinical trial registers should contain sections dedicated to the type and scope of the adaptation and that the term 'adaptive design' should be included in the trial title or at least in the brief summary or design sections.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 100 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Other 10 10%
Professor 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 37%
Mathematics 9 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Decision Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 28 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 20 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,591,159
of 20,850,533 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#489
of 5,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,052
of 280,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,850,533 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 280,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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