Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37660025›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical research methodology2023

Target trial emulation with multi-state model analysis to assess treatment effectiveness using clinical COVID-19 data.

Oksana Martinuka, Derek Hazard, Hamid Reza Marateb, Camille Maringe, Marjan Mansourian, Manuel Rubio-Rivas, Martin Wolkewitz

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Oksana MartinukaInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Centre, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. oksana.martinuka@uniklinik-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0874-7670
Derek HazardInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Centre, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7874-7567
Hamid Reza MaratebBiomedical Engineering Research Centre (CREB), Automatic Control Department (ESAII), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya-Barcelona Tech (UPC), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4408-2397
Camille MaringeInequalities in Cancer Outcomes Network (ICON), Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8739-9565
Marjan MansourianBiomedical Engineering Research Centre (CREB), Automatic Control Department (ESAII), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya-Barcelona Tech (UPC), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7217-0282
Manuel Rubio-RivasDepartment of Internal Medicine, Bellvitge University Hospital, Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute-IDIBELL, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Martin WolkewitzInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Centre, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1268-5057

Funding

Cancer Research UK 29018Medical Research Council MR/W021021/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReal-world observational data are an important source of evidence on the treatment effectiveness for patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness based on longitudinal data are often prone to methodological biases such as immortal time bias, confounding bias, and competing risks.

methodsFor exemplary target trial emulation, we used a cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (n = 501) in a single centre. We described the methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of a single-dose treatment, emulated a trial using real-world data, and drafted a hypothetical study protocol describing the main components. To avoid immortal time and time-fixed confounding biases, we applied the clone-censor-weight technique. We set a 5-day grace period as a period of time when treatment could be initiated. We used the inverse probability of censoring weights to account for the selection bias introduced by artificial censoring. To estimate the treatment effects, we took the multi-state model approach. We considered a multi-state model with five states. The primary endpoint was defined as clinical severity status, assessed by a 5-point ordinal scale on day 30. Differences between the treatment group and standard of care treatment group were calculated using a proportional odds model and shown as odds ratios. Additionally, the weighted cause-specific hazards and transition probabilities for each treatment arm were presented.

resultsOur study demonstrates that trial emulation with a multi-state model analysis is a suitable approach to address observational data limitations, evaluate treatment effects on clinically heterogeneous in-hospital death and discharge alive endpoints, and consider the intermediate state of admission to ICU. The multi-state model analysis allows us to summarize results using stacked probability plots that make it easier to interpret results.

conclusionsExtending the emulated target trial approach to multi-state model analysis complements treatment effectiveness analysis by gaining information on competing events. Combining two methodologies offers an option to address immortal time bias, confounding bias, and competing risk events. This methodological approach can provide additional insight for decision-making, particularly when data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are unavailable.

Indexed as

COVID-19HospitalizationHumansOdds RatioSelection BiasTreatment OutcomeBiasCOVID-19Multi-state modelsObservational dataTarget trial emulation

Identifiers

PMID37660025
PMCPMC10474639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.