ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023
A standardized framework for risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in observational healthcare databases.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in nephrology: predicting CKD progression and personalizing treatment.International urology and nephrology · 2026Review
- Blood-brain barrier penetration determines link between beta blockers and reduced mortality in patients with sepsis-associated encephalopathy: A multicenter cohort study and an effect heterogeneity tool.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026Article
- Characterizing Treatment Effect Heterogeneity Using Real-World Data.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Step-by-step causal analysis of EHRs to ground decision-making.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- The R.O.A.D. to precision medicine.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Comparative effectiveness of 6x R-CHOP21 versus 6x R-CHOP21 + 2 R for patients with advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.Blood cancer journal · 2024Article
- Making causal inferences from transactional data: A narrative review of opportunities and challenges when implementing the target trial framework.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Review
- Statistical approaches in ambispective cohort studies: Challenges and methodological insights.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Treatment effects are often anticipated to vary across groups of patients with different baseline risk. The Predictive Approaches to Treatment Effect Heterogeneity (PATH) statement focused on baseline risk as a robust predictor of treatment effect and provided guidance on risk-based assessment of treatment effect heterogeneity in a randomized controlled trial. The aim of this study is to extend this approach to the observational setting using a standardized scalable framework. The proposed framework consists of five steps: (1) definition of the research aim, i.e., the population, the treatment, the comparator and the outcome(s) of interest; (2) identification of relevant databases; (3) development of a prediction model for the outcome(s) of interest; (4) estimation of relative and absolute treatment effect within strata of predicted risk, after adjusting for observed confounding; (5) presentation of the results. We demonstrate our framework by evaluating heterogeneity of the effect of thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on three efficacy and nine safety outcomes across three observational databases. We provide a publicly available R software package for applying this framework to any database mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. In our demonstration, patients at low risk of acute myocardial infarction receive negligible absolute benefits for all three efficacy outcomes, though they are more pronounced in the highest risk group, especially for acute myocardial infarction. Our framework allows for the evaluation of differential treatment effects across risk strata, which offers the opportunity to consider the benefit-harm trade-off between alternative treatments.
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.