Trial reportHealth services research2018
Estimation of Population Average Treatment Effects in the FIRST Trial: Application of a Propensity Score-Based Stratification Approach.
Trial report in Health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can propensity score matching replace randomized controlled trials?World journal of methodology · 2024Review
- Applicability of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Trials to Real-World Clinical Practice: Findings From EXTEND-CoreValve.JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2021Article
- A National Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Preparedness for General Surgery Residency and the Association With Resident Burnout.JAMA surgery · 2020Article
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
objective/study questionTo estimate and compare sample average treatment effects (SATE) and population average treatment effects (PATE) of a resident duty hour policy change on patient and resident outcomes using data from the Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees Trial ("FIRST Trial"). DATA SOURCES/STUDY
settingSecondary data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the FIRST Trial (2014-2015). STUDY
designThe FIRST Trial was a cluster-randomized pragmatic noninferiority trial designed to evaluate the effects of a resident work hour policy change to permit greater flexibility in scheduling on patient and resident outcomes. We estimated hierarchical logistic regression models to estimate the SATE of a policy change on outcomes within an intent-to-treat framework. Propensity score-based poststratification was used to estimate PATE. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsThis study was a secondary analysis of previously collected data. PRINCIPAL
findingsAlthough SATE estimates suggested noninferiority of outcomes under flexible duty hour policy versus standard policy, the noninferiority of a policy change was inconclusively noninferior based on PATE estimates due to imprecision.
conclusionsPropensity score-based poststratification can be valuable tools to address trial generalizability but may yield imprecise estimates of PATE when sparse strata exist.
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.