Literature DB >> 30252687

Diagnostic Assessment of Assumptions for External Validity: An Example Using Data in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Michael A Webster-Clark1, Hanna K Sanoff2, Til Stürmer1, Sharon Peacock Hinton1, Jennifer L Lund1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Methods developed to estimate intervention effects in external target populations assume that all important effect measure modifiers have been identified and appropriately modeled. Propensity score-based diagnostics can be used to assess the plausibility of these assumptions for weighting methods.
METHODS: We demonstrate the use of these diagnostics when assessing the transportability of treatment effects from the standard of care for metastatic colorectal cancer control arm in a phase III trial (HORIZON III) to a target population of 1,942 Medicare beneficiaries age 65+ years.
RESULTS: In an unadjusted comparison, control arm participants had lower mortality compared with target population patients treated with the standard of care therapy (trial vs. target hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58, 0.89). Applying inverse odds of sampling weights attenuated the trial versus target HR (weighted HR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.73, 1.26). However, whether unadjusted or weighted, hazards did not appear proportional. At 6 months of follow-up, mortality was lower in the weighted trial population than the target population (weighted trial vs. target risk difference [RD] = -0.07, 95% CI = -0.13, -0.01), but not at 12 months (weighted RD = 0.00, 95% CI = -0.09, 0.09).
CONCLUSION: These diagnostics suggest that direct transport of treatment effects from HORIZON III to the Medicare population is not valid. However, the proposed sampling model might allow valid transport of the treatment effects on longer-term mortality from HORIZON III to the Medicare population treated in clinical practice. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B435.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30252687      PMCID: PMC6269648          DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000926

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiology        ISSN: 1044-3983            Impact factor:   4.822


  39 in total

1.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?".

Authors:  Peter M Rothwell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Jan 1-7       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Doubly robust estimation of the local average treatment effect curve.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Ogburn; Andrea Rotnitzky; James M Robins
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.488

3.  Estimating population treatment effects from a survey subsample.

Authors:  Kara E Rudolph; Iván Díaz; Michael Rosenblum; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  How generalizable are the results of large randomized controlled trials of antiretroviral therapy?

Authors:  D A Moore; R L Goodall; N J Ives; M Hooker; B G Gazzard; P J Easterbrook
Journal:  HIV Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.180

5.  Identifying specific chemotherapeutic agents in Medicare data: a validation study.

Authors:  Jennifer L Lund; Til Stürmer; Linda C Harlan; Hanna K Sanoff; Robert S Sandler; Maurice Alan Brookhart; Joan L Warren
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  US Black Women and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention: Time for New Approaches to Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Adaora A Adimora; Stephen R Cole; Joseph J Eron
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2017-07-15       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Computer-aided assessment of the generalizability of clinical trial results.

Authors:  Amos Cahan; Sorel Cahan; James J Cimino
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 4.046

8.  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

9.  Representation of African-Americans, Hispanics, and whites in National Cancer Institute cancer treatment trials.

Authors:  H A Tejeda; S B Green; E L Trimble; L Ford; J L High; R S Ungerleider; M A Friedman; O W Brawley
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1996-06-19       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  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
View more
  5 in total

1.  Improving the external validity of Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids trial findings.

Authors:  Jennifer A Hutcheon; Jessica Liauw
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 3.103

2.  Target validity: Bringing treatment of external validity in line with internal validity.

Authors:  Catherine R Lesko; Benjamin Ackerman; Michael Webster-Clark; Jessie K Edwards
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2020-06-30

3.  Assessing clinical trial effects on outcomes among pediatric and adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer.

Authors:  Shahar Shmuel; Jeff Y Yang; Sydney Thai; Michael Webster-Clark; Jennifer L Lund
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Reweighting Randomized Controlled Trial Evidence to Better Reflect Real Life - A Case Study of the Innovative Medicines Initiative.

Authors:  Michael Happich; Alan Brnabic; Douglas Faries; Keith Abrams; Katherine B Winfree; Allicia Girvan; Pall Jonsson; Joseph Johnston; Mark Belger
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2020-05-30       Impact factor: 6.875

5.  Two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Authors:  Antonio Remiro-Azócar
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 4.612

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.