Trial reportJournal of clinical epidemiology2025
Endpoint assessment via routinely collected data generates estimates comparable to randomized controlled trial data: analysis of a cluster-randomized trial on fall injury prevention.
Trial report in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesRoutinely collected data (RCD) from healthcare claims and encounters are increasingly used for outcomes in randomized trials; however, methods for estimating the validity and relative precision of RCD-derived outcomes compared to those from conventional outcome ascertainment are limited. We developed an approach to measuring validity and relative precision of RCD and quantifying uncertainty.
methodsWe reanalyzed data from the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) cluster-randomized, controlled trial. Eighty-six primary care practices in 10 US healthcare systems were randomized to either a multifactorial intervention delivered by nurse falls care managers, or enhanced usual care, with 5451 persons age ≥ 70 at increased fall injury risk enrolled in the study. We estimated the hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI) for STRIDE's primary outcome (time to first serious fall injury) using original study data and RCD. The ratio of the RCD HR to original HR ("ratio of HRs") measured validity. The confidence limit ratio (CLR; upper divided by lower confidence limits of CI) measured precision, with the ratio of the CLR with RCD to the CLR from the original study data ("ratio of CLRs"), measuring relative precision. We estimated uncertainty around the ratio of HRs and ratio of CLRs using bootstrapped 95% CIs and performed sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of adaptations needed to use RCD.
resultsAmong the original sample of 5451 study participants, 5036 (92%) were linked to RCD. The intervention to control HR was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78-1.07) in RCD, compared to 0.92 (95% CI: 0.80-1.06) in the original data. Using all RCD through STRIDE's administrative end date, the ratio of HRs was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89-1.11) and ratio of CLRs was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.96-1.06). The CI around ratio of HRs was about three-fold wider for RCD than for the original STRIDE data in individuals who linked to RCD. Relative precision of RCD improved with increased length of follow-up.
conclusionRelying solely on RCD to ascertain the primary outcome in STRIDE would have resulted in similar point estimates and confidence limits for the treatment effect as in the original data. However, there was meaningful uncertainty around the estimate of validity. Efforts to validate RCD-derived outcomes for use as clinical trial endpoints should include measurement of uncertainty around validity estimates.
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.