ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2012
Analysis of combined data from heterogeneous study designs: an applied example from the patient navigation research program.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pirfenidone for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: analysis of pooled data from three multinational phase 3 trials.The European respiratory journal · 2016Pooled it
- Impact of patient navigation on timely cancer care: the Patient Navigation Research Program.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2014Pooled it
- Can patient navigation improve receipt of recommended breast cancer care? Evidence from the National Patient Navigation Research Program.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2014Trial
- Estimating treatment effects from a randomized controlled trial with mid-trial design changes.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Article
- Early screening for post-stroke depression and its effect on functional outcomes, quality of life, and mortality: A meta-analysis.World journal of psychiatry · 2024Article
- Data Resource Profile: Cardiovascular H3Africa Innovation Resource (CHAIR).International journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
- Article
- Racial and ethnic differences in patient navigation: Results from the Patient Navigation Research Program.Cancer · 2016Article
- Follow-up and timeliness after an abnormal cancer screening among underserved, urban women in a patient navigation program.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2012Article
- Design of a prostate cancer patient navigation intervention for a Veterans Affairs hospital.BMC health services research · 2012Article
- C-REGS 2 - Design and methodology of a high-quality comparative effectiveness observational trial.Journal of medicine and lifeObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) is a cooperative effort of nine research projects, with similar clinical criteria but with different study designs. To evaluate projects such as PNRP, it is desirable to perform a pooled analysis to increase power relative to the individual projects. There is no agreed-upon prospective methodology, however, for analyzing combined data arising from different study designs. Expert opinions were thus solicited from the members of the PNRP Design and Analysis Committee. PURPOSE: To review possible methodologies for analyzing combined data arising from heterogeneous study designs.
methodsThe Design and Analysis Committee critically reviewed the pros and cons of five potential methods for analyzing combined PNRP project data. The conclusions were based on simple consensus. The five approaches reviewed included the following: (1) analyzing and reporting each project separately, (2) combining data from all projects and performing an individual-level analysis, (3) pooling data from projects having similar study designs, (4) analyzing pooled data using a prospective meta-analytic technique, and (5) analyzing pooled data utilizing a novel simulated group-randomized design.
resultsMethodologies varied in their ability to incorporate data from all PNRP projects, to appropriately account for differing study designs, and to accommodate differing project sample sizes. LIMITATIONS: The conclusions reached were based on expert opinion and not derived from actual analyses performed.
conclusionsThe ability to analyze pooled data arising from differing study designs may provide pertinent information to inform programmatic, budgetary, and policy perspectives. Multisite community-based research may not lend itself well to the more stringent explanatory and pragmatic standards of a randomized controlled trial design. Given our growing interest in community-based population research, the challenges inherent in the analysis of heterogeneous study design are likely to become more salient. Discussion of the analytic issues faced by the PNRP and the methodological approaches we considered may be of value to other prospective community-based research programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.