ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2025
Estimating target population treatment effects in meta-analysis with individual participant-level data.
Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Are Nuts Safe in Diverticulosis? A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Available Evidence.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Are arms-based methods required to test the stable unit treatment value assumption (SUTVA) among Cochrane reviews of contagious infection prevention interventions?Global epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials is commonly used to evaluate treatments and inform policy decisions because it provides comprehensive summaries of all available evidence. However, meta-analyses are limited to draw population inference of treatment effects because they usually do not define target populations of interest specifically, and results of the individual randomized controlled trials in those meta-analyses may not generalize to the target populations. To leverage evidence from multiple randomized controlled trials in the generalizability context, we bridge the ideas from meta-analysis and causal inference. We integrate meta-analysis with causal inference approaches estimating target population average treatment effect. We evaluate the performance of the methods via simulation studies and apply the methods to generalize meta-analysis results from randomized controlled trials of treatments on schizophrenia to adults with schizophrenia who present to usual care settings in the United States. Our simulation results show that all methods perform comparably and well across different settings. The data analysis results show that the treatment effect in the target population is meaningful, although the effect size is smaller than the sample average treatment effect. We recommend applying multiple methods and comparing the results to ensure robustness, rather than relying on a single method.
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.