SynthesisJournal of clinical epidemiology2018
Patients and investigators prefer measures of absolute risk in subgroups for pragmatic randomized trials.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized trial of web-based fertility-tracking software and fecundability.Fertility and sterility · 2023Trial
- Early introduction of peanut reduces peanut allergy across risk groups in pooled and causal inference analyses.Allergy · 2023Trial
- Early time-restricted eating affects weight, metabolic health, mood, and sleep in adherent completers: A secondary analysis.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2023Trial
- The heterogeneous treatment effects of statins on dementia: a target trial emulation with causal machine learning using integrated genetic and real-world data.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- A novel high dimensional approach to assess heterogeneous treatment effect in claims data.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Vancomycin-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Intensive Care Patients: A Target Trial Emulation Study Using Multicenter Routinely Collected Data.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Asthma Exacerbations: An Application of High-Dimensional Iterative Causal Forest to Identify Subgroups.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- Why use methods that require proportional hazards?American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- How hazard ratios can mislead and why it matters in practice.European journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Comparative effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers on cardiovascular outcomes in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a target trial emulation study.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Article
- Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Melanoma: A Population-Level Real-World Target Trial Emulation.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- De-Mystifying the Clone-Censor-Weight Method for Causal Research Using Observational Data: A Primer for Cancer Researchers.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Comparative effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone and sublingual buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder among Medicaid patients.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2024Observational
- Glucagon-like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists and Asthma Exacerbations: Which Patients Benefit Most?Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2024Article
- High-dimensional Iterative Causal Forest (hdiCF) for Subgroup Identification Using Health Care Claims Data.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Iterative Causal Forest: A Novel Algorithm for Subgroup Identification.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Comparative effectiveness of extended release naltrexone and sublingual buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder among Medicaid patients.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Causal relationships between pain, medical treatments, and knee osteoarthritis: A graphical causal model to guide analyses.Osteoarthritis and cartilage · 2024Article
- Starting a conversation about estimands with public partners involved in clinical trials: a co-developed tool.Trials · 2023Article
- Invited Commentary: Conducting and Emulating Trials to Study Effects of Social Interventions.American journal of epidemiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPragmatic randomized trials are important tools for shared decision-making, but no guidance exists on patients' preferences for types of causal information. We aimed to assess preferences of patients and investigators toward causal effects in pragmatic randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWe (a) held three focus groups with patients (n = 23) in Boston, MA; (b) surveyed (n = 12) and interviewed (n = 5) investigators with experience conducting pragmatic trials; and (c) conducted a systematic literature review of pragmatic trials (n = 63).
resultsPatients were distrustful of new-to-market medications unless substantially more effective than existing choices, preferred stratified absolute risks, and valued adherence-adjusted analyses when they expected to adhere. Investigators wanted both intention-to-treat and per-protocol effects but felt methods for estimating per-protocol effects were lacking. When estimating per-protocol effects, many pragmatic trials used inappropriate methods to adjust for adherence and loss to follow-up.
conclusionWe made four recommendations for pragmatic trials to improve patient centeredness: (1) focus on superiority in effectiveness or safety, rather than noninferiority; (2) involve patients in specifying a priori subgroups; (3) report absolute measures of risk; and (4) complement intention-to-treat effect estimates with valid per-protocol effect estimates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.