Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35737384›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2022

Temporal Trends in Clinical Evidence of 5-Year Survival Within Electronic Health Records Among Patients With Early-Stage Colon Cancer Managed With Laparoscopy-Assisted Colectomy vs Open Colectomy.

Jue Hou, Rachel Zhao, Tianrun Cai, Brett Beaulieu-Jones, Thany Seyok, Kumar Dahal, Qianyu Yuan, Xin Xiong, Clara-Lea Bonzel, Claire Fox and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jue HouDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rachel ZhaoDepartment of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Tianrun CaiDivision of Rheumatology, Inflammation, and Immunity, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Brett Beaulieu-JonesDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Thany SeyokDivision of Rheumatology, Inflammation, and Immunity, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kumar DahalDivision of Rheumatology, Inflammation, and Immunity, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Qianyu YuanDepartment of Environmental Health, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Xin XiongDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Clara-Lea BonzelDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Claire FoxMerck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
David C ChristianiDepartment of Environmental Health, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Thomas JemielitaMerck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Katherine P LiaoDivision of Rheumatology, Inflammation, and Immunity, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kai-Li LiawMerck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Tianxi CaiDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harvard University · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · USUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Statistical Methods for Analysis of Massive Genetic and Genomic Data in Cancer ResearchR35CA197449 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI XIHONG LIN · 2015 to 2026
$10.9M
NCI NIH HHS R35 CA197449
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Temporal shifts in clinical knowledge and practice need to be adjusted for in treatment outcome assessment in clinical evidence. Objective: To use electronic health record (EHR) data to (1) assess the temporal trends in treatment decisions and patient outcomes and (2) emulate a randomized clinical trial (RCT) using EHR data with proper adjustment for temporal trends. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy (COST) Study Group Trial assessing overall survival of patients with stages I to III early-stage colon cancer was chosen as the target trial. The RCT was emulated using EHR data of patients from a single health care system cohort who underwent colectomy for early-stage colon cancer from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017, and were followed up to January 1, 2020, from Mass General Brigham. Analyses were conducted from December 2, 2019, to January 24, 2022. Exposures: Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy (LAC) vs open colectomy (OC). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival. To address confounding in the emulation, pretreatment variables were selected and adjusted. The temporal trends were adjusted by stratification of the calendar year when the colectomies were performed with cotraining across strata. Results: A total of 943 patients met key RCT eligibility criteria in the EHR emulation cohort, including 518 undergoing LAC (median age, 63 [range, 20-95] years; 268 [52%] women; 121 [23%] with stage I, 165 [32%] with stage II, and 232 [45%] with stage III cancer; 32 [6%] with colon adhesion; 278 [54%] with right-sided colon cancer; 18 [3%] with left-sided colon cancer; and 222 [43%] with sigmoid colon cancer) and 425 undergoing OC (median age, 65 [range, 28-99] years; 223 [52%] women; 61 [14%] with stage I, 153 [36%] with stage II, and 211 [50%] with stage III cancer; 39 [9%] with colon adhesion; 202 [47%] with right-sided colon cancer; 39 [9%] with left-sided colon cancer; and 201 [47%] with sigmoid colon cancer). Tests for temporal trends in treatment assignment (χ2 = 60.3; P < .001) and overall survival (χ2 = 137.2; P < .001) were significant. The adjusted EHR emulation reached the same conclusion as the RCT: LAC is not inferior to OC in overall survival rate with risk difference at 5 years of -0.007 (95% CI, -0.070 to 0.057). The results were consistent for stratified analysis within each temporal period. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that confounding bias from temporal trends should be considered when conducting clinical evidence studies with long time spans. Stratification of calendar time and cotraining of models is one solution. With proper adjustment, clinical evidence may supplement RCTs in the assessment of treatment outcome over time.

Indexed as

LaparoscopySigmoid NeoplasmsAgedColectomyElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID35737384
PMCPMC9227003
OpenAlexW4283315337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.