ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2017
Comparing and Contrasting A Priori and A Posteriori Generalizability Assessment of Clinical Trials on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the design of clinical research studies on the efficacy mechanisms in type 2 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Review
- Exploring the feasibility of using real-world data from a large clinical data research network to simulate clinical trials of Alzheimer's disease.NPJ digital medicine · 2021Article
- How the clinical research community responded to the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of the COVID-19 clinical studies in ClinicalTrials.gov.JAMIA open · 2021Article
- Contemporary use of real-world data for clinical trial conduct in the United States: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- How the clinical research community responded to the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the COVID-19 clinical studies in ClinicalTrials.gov.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trials are indispensable tools for evidence-based medicine. However, they are often criticized for poor generalizability. Traditional trial generalizability assessment can only be done after the trial results are published, which compares the enrolled patients with a convenience sample of real-world patients. However, the proliferation of electronic data in clinical trial registries and clinical data warehouses offer a great opportunity to assess the generalizability during the design phase of a new trial. In this work, we compared and contrasted a priori (based on eligibility criteria) and a posteriori (based on enrolled patients) generalizability of Type 2 diabetes clinical trials. Further, we showed that comparing the study population selected by the clinical trial eligibility criteria to the real-world patient population is a good indicator of the generalizability of trials. Our findings demonstrate that the a priori generalizability of a trial is comparable to its a posteriori generalizability in identifying restrictive quantitative eligibility criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29854151PMC5977671What 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.