Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39327529›Full record

ArticleHealth economics2025

Going beyond randomised controlled trials to assess treatment effect heterogeneity across target populations.

David G Lugo-Palacios, Patrick Bidulka, Stephen O'Neill, Orlagh Carroll, Anirban Basu, Amanda Adler, Karla DíazOrdaz, Andrew Briggs, Richard Grieve

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

David G Lugo-PalaciosDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2621-5627
Patrick BidulkaDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Stephen O'NeillDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Orlagh CarrollDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Anirban BasuThe Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy & Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4238-7402
Amanda AdlerDiabetes Trials Unit, The Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, OCDEM Building Churchill Hospital, Headington, UK.
Karla DíazOrdazDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Andrew BriggsDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0777-1997
Richard GrieveDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8899-1301

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR128490
6 · The paper itself

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

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAgedComparative Effectiveness ResearchElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedResearch DesignTreatment Effect Heterogeneitydiabetes mellituselectronic health recordsheterogeneous treatment effectsinstrumental variablestarget trial emulationtransportability

Identifiers

PMID39327529
PMCPMC11631826

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.