Literature DB >> 9850135

Heterogeneity of the baseline risk within patient populations of clinical trials: a proposed evaluation algorithm.

J P Ioannidis1, J Lau.   

Abstract

In this paper, the authors present an evaluation algorithm for systematic assessment of the observed heterogeneity in disease risk within trial populations. Predictive models are used to estimate the predicted patient hazards, the odds of having an event in the upper risk quartile (ODU) and the lower risk quartile (ODL), and the odds ratio (rate ratio for time-to-event analyses) for having an event in the upper risk quartile versus the lower risk quartile (extreme quartile odds ratio (EQuOR) and extreme quartile rate ratio (EQuRR)). The ranges for these metrics depend on the extent to which predictors of the outcome of interest exist and are known and the extent to which data are collected in the trial, as well as on the eligibility criteria and the specific patients who are actually enrolled. ODU, ODL, and EQuOR values are used to systematically interpret the results for patients at different levels of risk, to evaluate generalizability, and to determine the need for subgroup analyses. Individual data for five outcomes from three trials (n = 842, 913, and 1,001, respectively) are used as examples. Observed EQuOR values ranged from 1.5 (very little predicted heterogeneity) to 59 (large heterogeneity). EQuRR values ranged from 2 to 46. ODU values ranged from 0.24 to 3.19 (generally high risk), and ODL values ranged from 0.01 (clinically negligible risk) to 0.16 (clinically meaningful risk). The algorithm may also be used for comparing diverse trials (e.g., in meta-analyses) and used prospectively for designing future trials, as shown in simulations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9850135     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009590

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  19 in total

1.  Antibiotics for acute sinusitis in general practice. Entry criteria were too dissimilar for studies to be combined for meta-analysis.

Authors:  G G Browning
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-06-12

Review 2.  A compendium of genome-wide associations for cancer: critical synopsis and reappraisal.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Peter Castaldi; Evangelos Evangelou
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  The relative merits of population-based and targeted prevention strategies.

Authors:  Donna M Zulman; Sandeep Vijan; Gilbert S Omenn; Rodney A Hayward
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.911

4.  Race and sex differences in response to endothelin receptor antagonists for pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Authors:  Nicole B Gabler; Benjamin French; Brian L Strom; Ziyue Liu; Harold I Palevsky; Darren B Taichman; Steven M Kawut; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 9.410

5.  Scoring System to Optimize Pioglitazone Therapy After Stroke Based on Fracture Risk.

Authors:  Catherine M Viscoli; David M Kent; Robin Conwit; Jennifer L Dearborn; Karen L Furie; Mark Gorman; Peter D Guarino; Silvio E Inzucchi; Amber Stuart; Lawrence H Young; Walter N Kernan
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  Using group data to treat individuals: understanding heterogeneous treatment effects in the age of precision medicine and patient-centred evidence.

Authors:  Issa J Dahabreh; Rodney Hayward; David M Kent
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 7.  Hypothermia in the management of traumatic brain injury. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  William R Henderson; Vinay K Dhingra; Dean R Chittock; John C Fenwick; Juan J Ronco
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2003-08-12       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials: the need for risk stratification in kidney transplantation.

Authors:  M Wagner; E M Balk; D M Kent; B L Kasiske; H Ekberg
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 8.086

9.  Risk and treatment effect heterogeneity: re-analysis of individual participant data from 32 large clinical trials.

Authors:  David M Kent; Jason Nelson; Issa J Dahabreh; Peter M Rothwell; Douglas G Altman; Rodney A Hayward
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 7.196

10.  Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge?

Authors:  Nicole B Gabler; Naihua Duan; Diana Liao; Joann G Elmore; Theodore G Ganiats; Richard L Kravitz
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-06-19       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.