ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Characterizing Treatment Effect Heterogeneity Using Real-World Data.
Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of disease risk score methods to study treatment effect heterogeneity: a simulation study.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Optimal management of oligometastatic prostate cancer: current state and future directions.Current opinion in oncology · 2026Review
- Reducing bias and enhancing equity in AI-enabled precision nutrition: addressing measurement error across wearables, multiomics, and dietary data.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Blood-brain barrier penetration determines link between beta blockers and reduced mortality in patients with sepsis-associated encephalopathy: A multicenter cohort study and an effect heterogeneity tool.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026Article
- The unregulated majority: who ensures quality in non-submission real-world studies?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Regarding: association of aspirin use alone with mortality and liver-related events in MASLD: a multi-institutional three-year study.Annals of medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Characterizing heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) is a fundamental goal of pharmacoepidemiology, addressing why medications work differently across patient populations. This paper reviews state-of-the-art methods for studying HTE using real-world data (RWD), which offer larger study sizes and more diverse patient populations compared to randomized clinical trials. The paper first defines HTE and discusses its measurement. It then examines three leading approaches to studying HTE: subgroup analysis, disease risk score (DRS) methods, and effect modeling methods. Subgroup analyses offer simplicity, transparency, and provide insights into drug mechanisms. However, they face difficulties in resolving which subgroup or combination of characteristics should be the basis for clinical decision making when multiple effect modifiers are present. DRS methods address some of these limitations by incorporating multiple patient characteristics into a summary score of outcome risk but may obscure insights into mechanisms. Effect modeling methods directly predict individual treatment effects, offering potential for precise HTE characterization, but are prone to model misspecification and may not provide mechanistic insights. The methods each have tradeoffs. Subgroup analysis is straightforward but can lead to spurious associations and does not account for multiple characteristics at once. DRS methods are relatively simple to implement and clinically useful, but may not completely describe HTE or provide mechanistic insight. Effect modeling approaches have great potential for characterizing HTE but are still being developed. Understanding HTE is essential for personalizing treatment strategies to improve patient outcomes. Researchers must weigh the strengths and limitations of each approach when using RWD to study HTE.
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.