Literature DB >> 7783541

Can overall results of clinical trials be applied to all patients?

P M Rothwell1.   

Abstract

It is generally assumed that the overall results of a clinical trial are generalisable to all patients in the trial and all similar future patients; in other words, that the relative treatment effect in individual patients is similar to the overall trial result. Although this assumption underpins the application of trial results to clinical practice, it has rarely been tested. By independently derived prognostic models, the results of the European Carotid Surgery Trial and the UK-TIA Aspirin Trial were reanalysed to find out whether relative treatment effect varied with absolute baseline risk of stroke. There was significant heterogeneity of relative treatment effect in both trials, resulting in substantial variation in absolute treatment effect with predicted baseline risk. Although, on average, the application of overall trial results to all patients will do more good than harm, a knowledge of the association between relative treatment effect and absolute baseline risk will increase the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions by identifying those patients in whom treatment is ineffective and those patients who are most likely to benefit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7783541     DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90120-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  62 in total

Review 1.  Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses--sometimes informative, usually misleading.

Authors:  L Smeeth; A Haines; S Ebrahim
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-06-05

2.  Common errors and controversies in pharmacoeconomic analyses.

Authors:  J Soto
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Understanding the relation between research and clinical policy: a study of clinicians' views.

Authors:  D Berrow; C Humphrey; J Hayward
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1997-12

4.  The case for stratified cost-effectiveness analysis by baseline health-related QOL: theory and sensitivity analysis.

Authors:  Joseph Schaafsma
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Limits of evidence-based surgery.

Authors:  Karem Slim
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 6.  Symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis: how, when, and who to treat?

Authors:  Peter M Rothwell
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 5.113

7.  Applying machine learning to predict real-world individual treatment effects: insights from a virtual patient cohort.

Authors:  Gang Fang; Izabela E Annis; Jennifer Elston-Lafata; Samuel Cykert
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 8.  Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects.

Authors:  David M Kent; Ewout Steyerberg; David van Klaveren
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-12-10

9.  Evaluating marker-guided treatment selection strategies.

Authors:  Roland A Matsouaka; Junlong Li; Tianxi Cai
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 10.  Acknowledging patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation : a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Janneke P C Grutters; Mark Sculpher; Andrew H Briggs; Johan L Severens; Math J Candel; James E Stahl; Dirk De Ruysscher; Albert Boer; Bram L T Ramaekers; Manuela A Joore
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.