ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2017
Geographic Information Systems to Assess External Validity in Randomized Trials.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The use of geographic information systems (GIS) in studying mental health service delivery: A scoping review.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2025Review
- From Neighborhood to Genome: Three Decades of Nutrition-Related Research from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo support claims that RCTs can reduce health disparities (i.e., are translational), it is imperative that methodologies exist to evaluate the tenability of external validity in RCTs when probabilistic sampling of participants is not employed. Typically, attempts at establishing post hoc external validity are limited to a few comparisons across convenience variables, which must be available in both sample and population. A Type 2 diabetes RCT was used as an example of a method that uses a geographic information system to assess external validity in the absence of a priori probabilistic community-wide diabetes risk sampling strategy.
methodsA geographic information system, 2009-2013 county death certificate records, and 2013-2014 electronic medical records were used to identify community-wide diabetes prevalence. Color-coded diabetes density maps provided visual representation of these densities. Chi-square goodness of fit statistic/analysis tested the degree to which distribution of RCT participants varied across density classes compared to what would be expected, given simple random sampling of the county population. Analyses were conducted in 2016.
resultsDiabetes prevalence areas as represented by death certificate and electronic medical records were distributed similarly. The simple random sample model was not a good fit for death certificate record (chi-square, 17.63; p=0.0001) and electronic medical record data (chi-square, 28.92; p<0.0001). Generally, RCT participants were oversampled in high-diabetes density areas.
conclusionsLocation is a highly reliable "principal variable" associated with health disparities. It serves as a directly measurable proxy for high-risk underserved communities, thus offering an effective and practical approach for examining external validity of RCTs.
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.