Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36977990›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023

Estimating individualized treatment effects from randomized controlled trials: a simulation study to compare risk-based approaches.

Alexandros Rekkas, Peter R Rijnbeek, David M Kent, Ewout W Steyerberg, David van Klaveren

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Alexandros RekkasDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. a.rekkas@erasmusmc.nl.
Peter R RijnbeekDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
David M KentPredictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
David van KlaverenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBaseline outcome risk can be an important determinant of absolute treatment benefit and has been used in guidelines for "personalizing" medical decisions. We compared easily applicable risk-based methods for optimal prediction of individualized treatment effects.

methodsWe simulated RCT data using diverse assumptions for the average treatment effect, a baseline prognostic index of risk, the shape of its interaction with treatment (none, linear, quadratic or non-monotonic), and the magnitude of treatment-related harms (none or constant independent of the prognostic index). We predicted absolute benefit using: models with a constant relative treatment effect; stratification in quarters of the prognostic index; models including a linear interaction of treatment with the prognostic index; models including an interaction of treatment with a restricted cubic spline transformation of the prognostic index; an adaptive approach using Akaike's Information Criterion. We evaluated predictive performance using root mean squared error and measures of discrimination and calibration for benefit.

resultsThe linear-interaction model displayed optimal or close-to-optimal performance across many simulation scenarios with moderate sample size (N = 4,250; ~ 785 events). The restricted cubic splines model was optimal for strong non-linear deviations from a constant treatment effect, particularly when sample size was larger (N = 17,000). The adaptive approach also required larger sample sizes. These findings were illustrated in the GUSTO-I trial.

conclusionsAn interaction between baseline risk and treatment assignment should be considered to improve treatment effect predictions.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicComputer SimulationHumansPrognosisSample SizeAbsolute benefitPrediction modelsTreatment effect heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID36977990
PMCPMC10045909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read10
table measurements read4
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.