Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33173350›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2020

Using the Causal Inference Framework to Support Individualized Drug Treatment Decisions Based on Observational Healthcare Data.

Andreas D Meid, Carmen Ruff, Lucas Wirbka, Felicitas Stoll, Hanna M Seidling, Andreas Groll, Walter E Haefeli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Can Machine Learning from Real-World Data Support Drug Treatment Decisions? A Prediction Modeling Case for Direct Oral Anticoagulants.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Andreas D MeidDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3537-3205
Carmen RuffDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.
Lucas WirbkaDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.
Felicitas StollDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.
Hanna M SeidlingDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.
Andreas GrollDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund 44227, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6787-9118
Walter E HaefeliDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69120, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0672-6876

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When healthcare professionals have the choice between several drug treatments for their patients, they often experience considerable decision uncertainty because many decisions simply have no single "best" choice. The challenges are manifold and include that guideline recommendations focus on randomized controlled trials whose populations do not necessarily correspond to specific patients in everyday treatment. Further reasons may be insufficient evidence on outcomes, lack of direct comparison of distinct options, and the need to individually balance benefits and risks. All these situations will occur in routine care, its outcomes will be mirrored in routine data, and could thus be used to guide decisions. We propose a concept to facilitate decision-making by exploiting this wealth of information. Our working example for illustration assumes that the response to a particular (drug) treatment can substantially differ between individual patients depending on their characteristics (heterogeneous treatment effects, HTE), and that decisions will be more precise if they are based on real-world evidence of HTE considering this information. However, such methods must account for confounding by indication and effect measure modification, eg, by adequately using machine learning methods or parametric regressions to estimate individual responses to pharmacological treatments. The better a model assesses the underlying HTE, the more accurate are predicted probabilities of treatment response. After probabilities for treatment-related benefit and harm have been calculated, decision rules can be applied and patient preferences can be considered to provide individual recommendations. Emulated trials in observational data are a straightforward technique to predict the effects of such decision rules when applied in routine care. Prediction-based decision rules from routine data have the potential to efficiently supplement clinical guidelines and support healthcare professionals in creating personalized treatment plans using decision support tools.

Indexed as

claims dataconfounding by indicationdecision-makingeffect modificationheterogeneous treatment effectsprediction-based decision rules

Identifiers

PMID33173350
PMCPMC7646479

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.