Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37925415›Full record

Observational studyBMC medical research methodology2023

Utilization of anonymization techniques to create an external control arm for clinical trial data.

Juha Mehtälä, Mehreen Ali, Timo Miettinen, Liisa Partanen, Kaisa Laapas, Petri T Niemelä, Igor Khorlo, Sanna Ström, Samu Kurki, Jarno Vapalahti and 2 more

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors.

Juha Mehtälä *MedEngine Oy, Helsinki, Finland. juha.mehtala@medengine.fi.
Mehreen Ali *Veil.ai Oy, Helsinki, Finland.
Timo MiettinenVeil.ai Oy, Helsinki, Finland.
Liisa PartanenBayer Oy, Espoo, Finland.
Kaisa LaapasBayer Oy, Espoo, Finland.
Petri T NiemeläBayer Oy, Espoo, Finland.
Igor KhorloBayer AG, Berlin, Germany.
Sanna StrömBayer Oy, Espoo, Finland.
Samu KurkiBayer Oy, Espoo, Finland.
Jarno VapalahtiBayer Oy, Espoo, Finland.
Khaled AbdelgawwadBayer AG, Berlin, Germany.
Jussi V LeinonenBayer Oy, Espoo, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubject-level real-world data (RWD) collected during daily healthcare practices are increasingly used in medical research to assess questions that cannot be addressed in the context of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A novel application of RWD arises from the need to create external control arms (ECAs) for single-arm RCTs. In the analysis of ECAs against RCT data, there is an evident need to manage and analyze RCT data and RWD in the same technical environment. In the Nordic countries, legal requirements may require that the original subject-level data be anonymized, i.e., modified so that the risk to identify any individual is minimal. The aim of this study was to conduct initial exploration on how well pseudonymized and anonymized RWD perform in the creation of an ECA for an RCT.

methodsThis was a hybrid observational cohort study using clinical data from the control arm of the completed randomized phase II clinical trial (PACIFIC-AF) and RWD cohort from Finnish healthcare data sources. The initial pseudonymized RWD were anonymized within the (k, ε)-anonymity framework (a model for protecting individuals against identification). Propensity score matching and weighting methods were applied to the anonymized and pseudonymized RWD, to balance potential confounders against the RCT data. Descriptive statistics for the potential confounders and overall survival analyses were conducted prior to and after matching and weighting, using both the pseudonymized and anonymized RWD sets.

resultsAnonymization affected the baseline characteristics of potential confounders only marginally. The greatest difference was in the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.6% vs. 5.4% in the pseudonymized compared to the anonymized data, respectively). Moreover, the overall survival changed in anonymization by only 8% (95% CI 4-22%). Both the pseudonymized and anonymized RWD were able to produce matched ECAs for the RCT data. Anonymization after matching impacted overall survival analysis by 22% (95% CI -21-87%).

conclusionsAnonymization may be a viable technique for cases where flexible data transfer and sharing are required. As anonymization necessarily affects some aspects of the original data, further research and careful consideration of anonymization strategies are needed.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchData AnonymizationClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnonymizationExternal control armRandomized clinical trialsReal-world data

Identifiers

PMID37925415
PMCPMC10625188

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.