Evidence mapPaperPMID 30869798Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2019

An outcome model approach to transporting a randomized controlled trial results to a target population.

Benjamin A Goldstein, Matthew Phelan, Neha J Pagidipati, Rury R Holman, Michael J Pencina, Elizabeth A Stuart

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Contemporary use of real-world data for clinical trial conduct in the United States: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Benjamin A GoldsteinDepartment of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Matthew PhelanCenter for Predictive Medicine, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Neha J PagidipatiCenter for Predictive Medicine, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Rury R HolmanEndocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Michael J PencinaDepartment of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Elizabeth A StuartDepartment of Biostatistics John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Clinical Research Institute · USJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001117NIDDK NIH HHS K25 DK097279
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveParticipants enrolled into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often do not reflect real-world populations. Previous research in how best to transport RCT results to target populations has focused on weighting RCT data to look like the target data. Simulation work, however, has suggested that an outcome model approach may be preferable. Here, we describe such an approach using source data from the 2 × 2 factorial NAVIGATOR (Nateglinide And Valsartan in Impaired Glucose Tolerance Outcomes Research) trial, which evaluated the impact of valsartan and nateglinide on cardiovascular outcomes and new-onset diabetes in a prediabetic population. MATERIALS AND

methodsOur target data consisted of people with prediabetes serviced at the Duke University Health System. We used random survival forests to develop separate outcome models for each of the 4 treatments, estimating the 5-year risk difference for progression to diabetes, and estimated the treatment effect in our local patient populations, as well as subpopulations, and compared the results with the traditional weighting approach.

resultsOur models suggested that the treatment effect for valsartan in our patient population was the same as in the trial, whereas for nateglinide treatment effect was stronger than observed in the original trial. Our effect estimates were more efficient than the weighting approach and we effectively estimated subgroup differences.

conclusionsThe described method represents a straightforward approach to efficiently transporting an RCT result to any target population.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAntihypertensive AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Disease ProgressionElectronic Health RecordsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansHypoglycemic AgentsNateglinideOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrediabetic StateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTranslational Research, BiomedicalValsartanAntihypertensive AgentsHypoglycemic AgentsNateglinideValsartanelectronic health recordsmachine learningpublic health informaticstreatment heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID30869798
PMCPMC7792754
OpenAlexW2963202888

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.