Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29444553›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2018

Evaluation of biomarkers for treatment selection using individual participant data from multiple clinical trials.

Chaeryon Kang, Holly Janes, Parvin Tajik, Henk Groen, Ben Mol, Corine Koopmans, Kim Broekhuijsen, Eva Zwertbroek, Maria van Pampus, Maureen Franssen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Digital Twins for Multiple Sclerosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2021
    Review
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

10 authors.

Chaeryon KangDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0001-9442-8515
Holly JanesVaccine and Infectious Disease Division and Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109, U.S.A.
Parvin TajikDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk GroenDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ben MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Corine KoopmansDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Kim BroekhuijsenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Eva ZwertbroekDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Maria van PampusDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Maureen FranssenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

Statistical Methods for Evaluating Markers for Treatment SelectionR01CA152089 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI JANES, HOLLY · 2010 to 2021
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA152089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomarkers that predict treatment effects may be used to guide treatment decisions, thus improving patient outcomes. A meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) is potentially more powerful than a single-study data analysis in evaluating markers for treatment selection. Our study was motivated by the IPD that were collected from 2 randomized controlled trials of hypertension and preeclampsia among pregnant women to evaluate the effect of labor induction over expectant management of the pregnancy in preventing progression to severe maternal disease. The existing literature on statistical methods for biomarker evaluation in IPD meta-analysis have evaluated a marker's performance in terms of its ability to predict risk of disease outcome, which do not directly apply to the treatment selection problem. In this study, we propose a statistical framework for evaluating a marker for treatment selection given IPD from a small number of individual clinical trials. We derive marker-based treatment rules by minimizing the average expected outcome across studies. The application of the proposed methods to the IPD from 2 studies in women with hypertension in pregnancy is presented.

Indexed as

BiomarkersPatient SelectionFemaleHumansHypertension, Pregnancy-InducedMeta-Analysis as TopicModels, StatisticalPre-EclampsiaPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsStatistics as TopicTreatment OutcomeBiomarkersHYPITAT trialsindividual participant datarandomized clinical trialtreatment selection biomarker

Identifiers

PMID29444553
PMCPMC5889758

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.