4.6 Article

Generalizing Evidence From Randomized Clinical Trials to Target Populations

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 172, Issue 1, Pages 107-115

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq084

Keywords

bias; bias (epidemiology); causal inference; external validity; generalizability; randomized trials; standardization

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R03-AI-071763, R01-AA-01759, P30-AI-50410, K25-MH083946]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Properly planned and conducted randomized clinical trials remain susceptible to a lack of external validity. The authors illustrate a model-based method to standardize observed trial results to a specified target population using a seminal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment trial, and they provide Monte Carlo simulation evidence supporting the method. The example trial enrolled 1,156 HIV-infected adult men and women in the United States in 1996, randomly assigned 577 to a highly active antiretroviral therapy and 579 to a largely ineffective combination therapy, and followed participants for 52 weeks. The target population was US people infected with HIV in 2006, as estimated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Results from the trial apply, albeit muted by 12%, to the target population, under the assumption that the authors have measured and correctly modeled the determinants of selection that reflect heterogeneity in the treatment effect. In simulations with a heterogeneous treatment effect, a conventional intent-to-treat estimate was biased with poor confidence limit coverage, but the proposed estimate was largely unbiased with appropriate confidence limit coverage. The proposed method standardizes observed trial results to a specified target population and thereby provides information regarding the generalizability of trial results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available