ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2021
Assessing the external validity of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extending Inferences from a Randomized Trial to Trial-eligible and Treatment-candidate Target Populations: Examples of Generalizability and Transportability.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Large simple randomized controlled trials-from drugs to medical devices: lessons from recent experience.Trials · 2025Review
- Response to "Willingness to Receive mHealth Services Among Patients with Diabetes on Chronic Follow-up in Public Hospitals in Eastern Ethiopia: Multicenter Mixed-Method Study" [Letter].Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial was a registry-based randomized trial comparing bivalirudin and heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. It showed no differences in mortality at 30 or 180 days. This study examines how well the trial population results may generalize to the population of all screened patients with fulfilled inclusion criteria in regard to mortality at 30 and 180 days.
methodsThe standardized difference in the mean propensity score for trial inclusion between trial population and the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria was calculated as a metric of similarity. Propensity scores were then used in an inverse-probability weighted Cox regression analysis using the trial population only to estimate the difference in mortality as it would have been had the trial included all screened patients with fulfilled inclusion criteria. Patients who were very likely to be included were weighted down and those who had a very low probability of being in the trial were weighted up.
resultsThe propensity score difference was 0.61. There were no significant differences in mortality between bivalirudin and heparin in the inverse-probability weighted analysis (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval (0.73, 1.68)) at 30 days or 180 days (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval (0.70, 1.36)).
conclusionThe propensity score difference demonstrated that the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria and trial population were not similar. The inverse-probability weighted analysis showed no significant differences in mortality. From this, we conclude that the VALIDATE results may be generalized to the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria.
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.