Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39828917›Full record

ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2025

Estimating target population treatment effects in meta-analysis with individual participant-level data.

Hwanhee Hong, Lu Liu, Elizabeth A Stuart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

3 authors.

Hwanhee HongDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3736-6327
Lu LiuDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Elizabeth A StuartDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

Using an innovative quality improvement process to increase delivery of evidenced-based CVD risk factor care in community mental health organizationsP50MH115842 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rheanna Edith Platt · 2018 to 2026
$16.2M
Estimating Population Effects in Mental Health Research Using Meta-AnalysisR00MH111807 · NIMH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI HONG, HWANHEE · 2018 to 2020
$747k
Estimating Population Effects in Mental Health Research Using Meta-AnalysisK99MH111807 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI HONG, HWANHEE · 2017 to 2018
$118k
NIMH NIH HHS K99 MH111807NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH115842NIMH NIH HHS R00 MH111807
6 · The paper itself

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

Meta-Analysis as TopicComputer SimulationHumansModels, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSchizophreniaTreatment Outcomeexternal validitygeneralizabilityMeta-analysispopulation effectschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID39828917
PMCPMC13625926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.