Trial reportAmerican journal of epidemiology2019
Comparison of Methods to Generalize Randomized Clinical Trial Results Without Individual-Level Data for the Target Population.
Trial report in American journal of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stratifying cardiovascular benefits from GLP-1RA: a multisource analysis of patient-level CVOT and real-world data using AI-driven methods.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Article
- Learning about treatment effects in a new target population under transportability assumptions for relative effect measures.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Standardizing to specific target populations in distributed networks and multisite pharmacoepidemiologic studies.American journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- Using Randomized Controlled Trials to Estimate the Effect of Community Interventions for Childhood Asthma.Preventing chronic disease · 2023Article
- Transporting monovalent rotavirus vaccine efficacy estimates to an external target population: a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial in Malawi.Epidemiology and infection · 2023Article
- Association of immediate reinsertion of new catheters with subsequent mortality among patients with suspected catheter infection: a cohort study.Annals of intensive care · 2022Article
- Article
- Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effects based on causal forests applied to two randomized clinical trials of intensive glycemic control.Annals of epidemiology · 2022Article
- Transposition of cardiovascular outcome trial effects to the real-world population of patients with type 2 diabetes.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2021Article
- Reweighting Randomized Controlled Trial Evidence to Better Reflect Real Life - A Case Study of the Innovative Medicines Initiative.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Our study explored the application of methods to generalize randomized controlled trial results to a target population without individual-level data. We compared 4 methods using aggregate data for the target population to generalize results from the international trial, Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER), to a target population of trial-eligible patients in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). The gold-standard method used individual data from both the trial and CPRD to predict probabilities of being sampled in the trial and to reweight trial participants to reflect CPRD patient characteristics. Methods 1 and 2 used weighting methods based on simulated individual data or the method of moments, respectively. Method 3 weighted the trial's subgroup-specific treatment effects to match the distribution of an effect modifier in CPRD. Method 4 calculated the expected absolute benefits in CPRD assuming homogeneous relative treatment effect. Methods based on aggregate data for the target population generally yielded results between the trial and gold-standard estimates. Methods 1 and 2 yielded estimates closest to the gold-standard estimates when continuous effect modifiers were represented as categorical variables. Although individual data or data on joint distributions remains the best approach to generalize trial results, these methods using aggregate data might be useful tools for timely assessment of randomized trial generalizability.
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.