Literature DB >> 28833067

Estimation of Population Average Treatment Effects in the FIRST Trial: Application of a Propensity Score-Based Stratification Approach.

Jeanette W Chung1, Karl Y Bilimoria1, Jonah J Stulberg1, Christopher M Quinn1, Larry V Hedges2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE/STUDY QUESTION: To estimate and compare sample average treatment effects (SATE) and population average treatment effects (PATE) of a resident duty hour policy change on patient and resident outcomes using data from the Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees Trial ("FIRST Trial"). DATA SOURCES/STUDY
SETTING: Secondary data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the FIRST Trial (2014-2015). STUDY
DESIGN: The FIRST Trial was a cluster-randomized pragmatic noninferiority trial designed to evaluate the effects of a resident work hour policy change to permit greater flexibility in scheduling on patient and resident outcomes. We estimated hierarchical logistic regression models to estimate the SATE of a policy change on outcomes within an intent-to-treat framework. Propensity score-based poststratification was used to estimate PATE. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of previously collected data. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Although SATE estimates suggested noninferiority of outcomes under flexible duty hour policy versus standard policy, the noninferiority of a policy change was inconclusively noninferior based on PATE estimates due to imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS: Propensity score-based poststratification can be valuable tools to address trial generalizability but may yield imprecise estimates of PATE when sparse strata exist. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Resident duty hours; generalizability; medical education; propensity score methods; surgical outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28833067      PMCID: PMC6051989          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12752

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  37 in total

Review 1.  Invited commentary: propensity scores.

Authors:  M M Joffe; P R Rosenbaum
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1999-08-15       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Generalizability of cancer clinical trial results: prognostic differences between participants and nonparticipants.

Authors:  Linda S Elting; Catherine Cooksley; B Nebiyou Bekele; Michael Frumovitz; Elenir B C Avritscher; Charlotte Sun; Diane C Bodurka
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Increasing trial generalizability.

Authors:  Carolyn C Gotay
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-02-20       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.

Authors:  R B D'Agostino
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Generalizability of trial results based on randomized versus nonrandomized allocation of OME infants to ventilation tubes or watchful waiting.

Authors:  M M Rovers; H Straatman; K Ingels; G J van der Wilt; P van den Broek; G A Zielhuis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  The generalizability of trial data; a comparison of beta-blocker trial participants with a prospective cohort of women taking beta-blockers in pregnancy.

Authors:  L A Magee; S B Bull; G Koren; A Logan
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.435

7.  Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities.

Authors:  Vivek H Murthy; Harlan M Krumholz; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-06-09       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Participation in surgical oncology clinical trials: gender-, race/ethnicity-, and age-based disparities.

Authors:  John H Stewart; Alain G Bertoni; Jennifer L Staten; Edward A Levine; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-08-08       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Assessing the generalizability of randomized trial results to target populations.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Catherine P Bradshaw; Philip J Leaf
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2015-04

10.  Generalizability of clinical trial results for major depression to community samples: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.

Authors:  Carlos Blanco; Mark Olfson; Renee D Goodwin; Elizabeth Ogburn; Michael R Liebowitz; Edward V Nunes; Deborah S Hasin
Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 4.384

View more
  2 in total

1.  A National Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Preparedness for General Surgery Residency and the Association With Resident Burnout.

Authors:  Kathryn E Engelhardt; Karl Y Bilimoria; Julie K Johnson; D Brock Hewitt; Ryan J Ellis; Yue Yung Hu; Jeanette W Chung; Lindsey Kreutzer; Remi Love; Eddie Blay; David D Odell
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 14.766

2.  Applicability of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Trials to Real-World Clinical Practice: Findings From EXTEND-CoreValve.

Authors:  Neel M Butala; Eric Secemsky; Dhruv S Kazi; Yang Song; Jordan B Strom; Kamil F Faridi; J Matthew Brennan; Sammy Elmariah; Changyu Shen; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2021-10-11       Impact factor: 11.075

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.