Evidence mapPaperPMID 33585162Full record

ArticleCurrent epidemiology reports2020

Target validity: Bringing treatment of external validity in line with internal validity.

Catherine R Lesko, Benjamin Ackerman, Michael Webster-Clark, Jessie K Edwards

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current epidemiology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors.

Catherine R LeskoDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Benjamin AckermanDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Michael Webster-ClarkDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Jessie K EdwardsDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Funding

Comparative effectiveness of tailored HIV treatment plans and mortalityK01AI125087 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Jessie Edwards · 2021 to 2021
$95k
NIAAA NIH HHS K01 AA028193NIAID NIH HHS K01 AI125087
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of review"Target bias" is the difference between an estimate of association from a study sample and the causal effect in the target population of interest. It is the sum of internal and external bias. Given the extensive literature on internal validity, here, we review threats and methods to improve external validity. RECENT

findingsExternal bias may arise when the distribution of modifiers of the effect of treatment differs between the study sample and the target population. Methods including those based on modeling the outcome, modeling sample membership, and doubly robust methods are available, assuming data on the target population is available. SUMMARY: The relevance of information for making policy decisions is dependent on both the actions that were studied and the sample in which they were evaluated. Combining methods for addressing internal and external validity can improve the policy relevance of study results.

Indexed as

External ValidityGeneralizabilityInternal ValidityRandomized TrialsTarget PopulationTransportability

Identifiers

PMID33585162
PMCPMC7879946

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.