ArticleJAMA network open2024
Calibrating Observational Health Record Data Against a Randomized Trial.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Concordance between target trial emulation and randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic Evaluation of Data and Trial Fitness for Oncology Trial Emulation: Empirical Findings from the CARE Initiative.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy and Risk of Pulmonary and Systemic Infections in Diabetic Gastroparesis: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Mapping eligibility criteria in oncology target trial emulations using real-world data: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Understanding the role of hypertension in stroke outcomes using Bayesian analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 18.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
- Target trial emulation in oncology: current use and future directions.Military Medical Research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
44 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The conditions required for health record data sources to accurately assess treatment effectiveness remain unclear. Emulation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with health record data and subsequent calibration of the results can help elucidate this. Objective: To pilot an emulation of the KEYNOTE-189 RCT using a commercially available electronic health record (EHR) data source. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used an EHR database spanning from April 2007 to February 2023. Follow-up began on treatment initiation and proceeded until an outcome event, loss to follow-up, end of data, or end of study period (640 days). The population-based cohort was ascertained from EHRs provided by 52 health systems across the US. Eligibility criteria were defined as closely as possible to the benchmark RCT. Patients with non-small cell lung cancer initiating first-line treatment for metastatic disease were included. Patients with evidence of squamous non-small cell lung cancer, primary nonlung malignant neoplasms, or identified EGFR/ALK variations were excluded. Data were analyzed from June to October 2023. Exposures: Initiation of first-line pembrolizumab and chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. Chemotherapy in both groups was defined as a combination of pemetrexed and platinum-based (carboplatin or cisplatin) therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were 12-month survival probability and mortality hazard ratio (HR). Results: A total of 1854 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [9.6] years; 971 [52.4%] men) were eligible, including 589 patients who initiated pembrolizumab and chemotherapy and 1265 patients who initiated chemotherapy only. The cohort included 364 Black patients (19.6%) and 1445 White patients (77.9%). The 12-month survival probabilities were 0.60 (95% CI, 0.54-0.65) in the pembrolizumab group and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.55-0.62) in the chemotherapy-only group, compared with 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.74) in the KEYNOTE-189 pembrolizumab group and 0.49 (95% CI, 0.42-0.56) in the KEYNOTE-189 chemotherapy-only group. The mortality HR was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.78-1.16), compared with 0.49 (95% CI, 0.38-0.64) in the KEYNOTE-189 RCT. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study piloting an RCT emulation, results were incongruous with the benchmark trial. Differences in patient treatment and data capture between the RCT and EHR populations, confounding by indication, treatment crossover, and accuracy of captured diagnoses may explain these findings. Future feasibility assessments will require data sources to have important oncology-specific measures curated.
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.