↓ Skip to main content

The importance of collecting structured clinical information on multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
The importance of collecting structured clinical information on multiple sclerosis
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0627-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tjalf Ziemssen, Jan Hillert, Helmut Butzkueven

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the 'gold standard' in the generation of drug efficacy and safety evidence. However, enrolment criteria, timelines and atypical comparators of RCTs limit their relevance to standard clinical practice. Real-world data (RWD) provide longitudinal information on the comparative effectiveness and tolerability of drugs, as well as their impact on resource use, medical costs, and pharmacoeconomic and patient-reported outcomes. This is particularly important in multiple sclerosis (MS), where economic treatment benefits of long-term disability reduction are a cornerstone of payer drug approvals - these are typically not examined in the RCT itself but modelled using real-world datasets. Importantly, surrogate markers used in RCTs to predict the prevention of long-term disability progression can only truly be assessed through RWD methodologies. We discuss the differences between RCTs and RWD studies, describe how RWD complements the evidence base from RCTs in MS, summarize the different methods of RWD collection, and explain the importance of structuring data analysis to avoid bias. Guidance on performing and identifying high-quality real-world evidence studies is also provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 51 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 43%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Computer Science 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 12 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,043,950
of 23,318,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,333
of 3,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,459
of 340,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#30
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,318,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 340,428 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.