ArticleHealth economics2025
Going beyond randomised controlled trials to assess treatment effect heterogeneity across target populations.
Article in Health economics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- PERsonalised Medicine for Intensification of Treatment (PERMIT) in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a target trial emulation from routine data.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Article
- Going beyond randomised controlled trials to assess treatment effect heterogeneity across target populations.Health economics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Methods have been developed for transporting evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to target populations. However, these approaches allow only for differences in characteristics observed in the RCT and real-world data (overt heterogeneity). These approaches do not recognise heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) according to unmeasured characteristics (essential heterogeneity). We use a target trial design and apply a local instrumental variable (LIV) approach to electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and examine both forms of heterogeneity in assessing the comparative effectiveness of two second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. We first estimate individualised estimates of HTE across the entire target population defined by applying eligibility criteria from national guidelines (n = 13,240) within an overall target trial framework. We define a subpopulation who meet a published RCT's eligibility criteria ('RCT-eligible', n = 6497), and a subpopulation who do not ('RCT-ineligible', n = 6743). We compare average treatment effects for pre-specified subgroups within the RCT-eligible subpopulation, the RCT-ineligible subpopulation, and within the overall target population. We find differences across these subpopulations in the magnitude of subgroup-level treatment effects, but that the direction of estimated effects is stable. Our results highlight that LIV methods can provide useful evidence about treatment effect heterogeneity including for those subpopulations excluded from RCTs.
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.