Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32833083›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2020

What is an estimand & how does it relate to quantifying the effect of treatment on patient-reported quality of life outcomes in clinical trials?

Rachael Lawrance, Evgeny Degtyarev, Philip Griffiths, Peter Trask, Helen Lau, Denise D'Alessio, Ingolf Griebsch, Gudrun Wallenstein, Kim Cocks, Kaspar Rufibach

Registry-linked trialAbstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06567340 (StratCare Trial 2), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT06567340 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

StratCare Trial 2: Evaluating the Clinical and Cost-effectiveness of AI-driven Stratified Care for Depression

TypeinterventionalSponsorRotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation TrustRan2025 to 2027Enrolled1,252ConditionsDepressionArmsStratCare
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Estimands for factorial trials.Statistics in medicine · 2022
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Eliminating Ambiguous Treatment Effects Using Estimands.American journal of epidemiology · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Rachael LawranceAdelphi Values Ltd, Bollington, UK. rachael.lawrance@adelphivalues.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9499-8443
Evgeny DegtyarevNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Philip GriffithsAdelphi Values Ltd, Bollington, UK.
Peter TraskGenentech, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Helen LauNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA.
Denise D'AlessioNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA.
Ingolf GriebschBoehringer-Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim, Germany.
Gudrun WallensteinBoehringer-Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim, Germany.
Kim CocksAdelphi Values Ltd, Bollington, UK.
Kaspar RufibachF.Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublished in 2019, a new addendum to the ICH E9 guideline presents the estimand framework as a systematic approach to ensure alignment among clinical trial objectives, trial execution/conduct, statistical analyses, and interpretation of results. The use of the estimand framework for describing clinical trial objectives has yet to be extensively considered in the context of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We discuss the application of the estimand framework to PRO objectives when designing clinical trials in the future, with a focus on PRO outcomes in oncology trial settings as our example. MAIN: We describe the components of an estimand and take a naïve PRO trial objective to illustrate how to apply attributes described in the estimand framework to inform construction of a detailed clinical trial objective and its related estimand. We discuss identifying potential post-randomization events that alter the interpretation of the endpoint or render its observation impossible (also defined as intercurrent events) in the context of PRO endpoints, and the implications of how to handle intercurrent events in the construction of the PRO objective. Using a simple objective statement, "What is the effect of treatment X on patient's quality of life?", we build up an example estimand statement and also use a previously published phase III oncology clinical trial to illustrate how an estimand for a PRO objective could have been written to align to the estimate framework.

conclusionThe use of the estimand framework, as described in the new ICH E9 (R1) addendum guideline will become a key common framework for developing clinical trial objectives for evaluating effects of treatment. In the context of considering PROs, the framework provides an opportunity to more precisely specify and build the rationale for patient-focused objectives. This will help to ensure that clinical trials used for registration are designed and analysed appropriately, enabling all stakeholders to accurately interpret conclusions about the treatment effects for patient-focused outcomes.

Indexed as

Clinical trialDesignEstimandHRQoLICHObjectivePatientPROTreatment effect

Identifiers

PMID32833083
PMCPMC7445213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.