ArticlePloS one2020
Using the Bayesian credible subgroups method to identify populations benefiting from treatment: An application to the Look AHEAD trial.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditionally, subgroup analyses are used to assess whether patient characteristics moderate treatment effectiveness with general disregard for issues of multiplicity. Using data from The Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) trial in the United States, we aim to identify a subgroup where all of its types of members experience a treatment benefit defined as reducing the likelihood of a major cardiovascular event under an intensive lifestyle and weight-loss intervention. We apply the credible subgroups method to a Bayesian logistic model with a conservative prior that is sceptical of large treatment effect heterogeneity. The covariate profiles for which there is sufficient evidence of treatment benefit are, coarsely, middle-aged women, in poor subjective general health and with moderately to poorly controlled diabetes. There is at least 80% posterior probability that the conditional average treatment effect is positive for all covariate profiles fitting this description, which account for 0.5% of trial participants. Conversely, the covariate profiles that are likely to be associated with no benefit are middle aged and older men in excellent subjective general health, with well-controlled diabetes. These profiles apply to less than 2% of trial participants. More information is required to determine treatment benefit or no benefit for the remainder of the trial population.
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.