Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31574163›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2020

Are Novel, Nonrandomized Analytic Methods Fit for Decision Making? The Need for Prospective, Controlled, and Transparent Validation.

Hans-Georg Eichler, Franz Koenig, Peter Arlett, Harald Enzmann, Anthony Humphreys, Frank Pétavy, Brigitte Schwarzer-Daum, Bruno Sepodes, Spiros Vamvakas, Guido Rasi

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
26.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Machine Learning Methods to Estimate Individualized Treatment Effects for Use in Health Technology Assessment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Review
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.

Hans-Georg EichlerEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Franz KoenigMedical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Peter ArlettEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Harald EnzmannFederal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Bonn, Germany.
Anthony HumphreysEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frank PétavyEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Brigitte Schwarzer-DaumMedical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Bruno SepodesEMA's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Spiros VamvakasEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Guido RasiEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
European Medicines Agency · NLMedical University of Vienna · ATAcademic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Real-world data and patient-level data from completed randomized controlled trials are becoming available for secondary analysis on an unprecedented scale. A range of novel methodologies and study designs have been proposed for their analysis or combination. However, to make novel analytical methods acceptable for regulators and other decision makers will require their testing and validation in broadly the same way one would evaluate a new drug: prospectively, well-controlled, and according to a pre-agreed plan. From a European regulators' perspective, the established methods qualification advice procedure with active participation of patient groups and other decision makers is an efficient and transparent platform for the development and validation of novel study designs.

Indexed as

Decision MakingData CollectionHumansPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID31574163
PMCPMC7158212
OpenAlexW2977769518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.