ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023
Using public clinical trial reports to probe non-experimental causal inference methods.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Design, implementation, and inferential issues associated with clinical trials that rely on data in electronic medical records: a narrative review.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-experimental studies (also known as observational studies) are valuable for estimating the effects of various medical interventions, but are notoriously difficult to evaluate because the methods used in non-experimental studies require untestable assumptions. This lack of intrinsic verifiability makes it difficult both to compare different non-experimental study methods and to trust the results of any particular non-experimental study.
methodsWe introduce TrialProbe, a data resource and statistical framework for the evaluation of non-experimental methods. We first collect a dataset of pseudo "ground truths" about the relative effects of drugs by using empirical Bayesian techniques to analyze adverse events recorded in public clinical trial reports. We then develop a framework for evaluating non-experimental methods against that ground truth by measuring concordance between the non-experimental effect estimates and the estimates derived from clinical trials. As a demonstration of our approach, we also perform an example methods evaluation between propensity score matching, inverse propensity score weighting, and an unadjusted approach on a large national insurance claims dataset.
resultsFrom the 33,701 clinical trial records in our version of the ClinicalTrials.gov dataset, we are able to extract 12,967 unique drug/drug adverse event comparisons to form a ground truth set. During our corresponding methods evaluation, we are able to use that reference set to demonstrate that both propensity score matching and inverse propensity score weighting can produce estimates that have high concordance with clinical trial results and substantially outperform an unadjusted baseline.
conclusionsWe find that TrialProbe is an effective approach for probing non-experimental study methods, being able to generate large ground truth sets that are able to distinguish how well non-experimental methods perform in real world observational data.
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.