SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2026
Concordance between target trial emulation and randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Generic vs. brand-name pramipexole: effectiveness, safety, and cost comparison in a multicenter retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the concordance of results between paired target trial emulations and their benchmarking randomised controlled trials and to explore determinants of emulation success.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (2010 to 2025). STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies that explicitly aimed to emulate target randomised controlled trials of a health intervention were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted on study domain, target population, intervention, comparator, and main outcomes for each emulation and corresponding randomised controlled trial.
main outcome measuresFor 21 predefined emulation design features, concordance was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients, standardised difference agreement, and ratio of ratios, with subgroup and regression analyses of study characteristics and concordance.
resultsAmong 107 target trial emulation-randomised controlled trial pairs, the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.70), standardised difference agreement was 79% (85/107), and summary ratio of ratios was 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.01; I
conclusionsCurrent target trial emulations achieve moderate concordance when replicating their corresponding randomised controlled trials. Concordance could be improved by better emulation design, including better baseline and outcome emulation and leveraging multisource linked databases. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024619811.
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.