ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
A Two-Stage Method for Extending Inferences From a Collection of Trials.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When considering the effect a treatment will cause in a population of interest, we often look to evidence from randomized controlled trials. In settings where multiple trials on a treatment are available, we may wish to synthesize the trials' participant data to obtain causally interpretable estimates of the average treatment effect in a specific target population. Traditional meta-analytic approaches to synthesizing data from multiple studies estimate the average effect among the studies. The resulting estimate is often not causally interpretable in any population, much less a particular target population, due to heterogeneity in the effect of treatment across studies. Inspired by traditional two-stage meta-analytic methods and methods for extending inferences from a single study, we propose a two-stage approach to extending inferences from a collection of randomized controlled trials that can be used to obtain causally interpretable estimates of treatment effects in a target population when there is between-study heterogeneity in conditional average treatment effects. We first introduce a collection of assumptions under which the target population's average treatment effect is identifiable when conditional average treatment effects are heterogeneous across studies. We then introduce an estimator that utilizes weighting in two stages, taking a weighted average of study-specific estimates of the treatment effect in the target population. We assess the performance of our proposed approach through simulation studies and two applications: A multi-center randomized clinical trial studying a Hepatitis-C treatment and a collection of studies on a therapy treatment for symptoms of pediatric traumatic brain injury.
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.