Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26262115›Full record

ArticleStudies in health technology and informatics2015

Assessing the Collective Population Representativeness of Related Type 2 Diabetes Trials by Combining Public Data from ClinicalTrials.gov and NHANES.

Zhe He, Shuang Wang, Elhaam Borhanian, Chunhua Weng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Studies in health technology and informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Advancing Alzheimer's research: A review of big data promises.International journal of medical informatics · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Assessing the Use and Perception of Dietary Supplements Among Obese Patients with National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2020
    Article
  10. Review
  11. An outcome model approach to transporting a randomized controlled trial results to a target population.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Article
  12. Comparing the Study Populations in Dietary Supplement and Drug Clinical Trials for Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2019
    Article
  13. EliIE: An open-source information extraction system for clinical trial eligibility criteria.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Analysis of Temporal Constraints in Qualitative Eligibility Criteria of Cancer Clinical Studies.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine · 2016
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Assessing the population representativeness of colorectal cancer treatment clinical trials.Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Zhe HeDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Shuang WangDepartment of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Elhaam BorhanianDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Chunhua WengDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000040 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2012 to 2015
$26.2M
Bridging the Semantic Gap Between Research Eligibility Criteria and Clinical DataR01LM009886 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WENG, CHUNHUA · 2009 to 2020
$5.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000040NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009886NLM NIH HHS R01LM009886
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials generate high-quality medical evidence. However, the use of unjustified inclusion/exclusion criteria may compromise the external validity of a study. We have introduced a method to assess the population representativeness of related clinical trials using electronic health record (EHR) data. As EHR data may not perfectly represent the real-world patient population, in this work, we further validated the method and its results using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. We visualized and quantified the differences in the distributions of age, HbA1c, and BMI among the target population of Type 2 diabetes trials, diabetics in NHANES databases, and a convenience sample of patients enrolled in selected Type 2 diabetes trials. The results are consistent with the previous study.

Indexed as

AgedDatabases, FactualDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diet TherapyElectronic Health RecordsHumansMaleMedical Record LinkageMiddle AgedNutrition SurveysPopulation SurveillancePrevalenceRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTherapeuticsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26262115
PMCPMC4586087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.