ArticleHealth services & outcomes research methodology2016
Combining Non-randomized and Randomized Data in Clinical Trials Using Commensurate Priors.
Article in Health services & outcomes research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of left ventricular ejection fraction in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Examining the Diagnostic Accuracy of a Novel Performance-Based Test for Alzheimer's Disease Screening.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2024Article
- A SuperLearner-enforced approach for the estimation of treatment effect in pediatric trials.Digital healthArticle
- A Commensurate Prior Model With Random Effects for Survival and Competing Risk Outcomes to Accommodate Historical Controls.Pharmaceutical statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomization eliminates selection bias, and attenuates imbalance among study arms with respect to prognostic factors, both known and unknown. Thus, information arising from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is typically considered the gold standard for comparing therapeutic interventions in confirmatory studies. However, RCTs are limited in contexts wherein patients who are willing to accept a random treatment assignment represent only a subset of the patient population. By contrast, observational studies (OSs) often enroll patient cohorts that better reflect the broader patient population. However, OSs often suffer from selection bias, and may yield invalid treatment comparisons even after adjusting for known confounders. Therefore, combining information acquired from OSs with data from RCTs in research synthesis is often criticized due to the limitations of OSs. In this article, we combine randomized and non-randomized substudy data from FIRST, a recent HIV/AIDS drug trial. We develop hierarchical Bayesian approaches devised to combine data from all sources simultaneously while explicitly accounting for potential discrepancies in the sources' designs. Specifically, we describe a two-step approach combining propensity score matching and Bayesian hierarchical modeling to integrate information from non-randomized studies with data from RCTs, to an extent that depends on the estimated commensurability of the data sources. We investigate our procedure's operating characteristics via simulation. Our findings have implications for HIV/AIDS research, as well as elucidate the extent to which well-designed non-randomized studies can complement 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.