ArticlePravention und Gesundheitsforderung2023
[Comparing the effectiveness of multiple dynamic treatment strategies using target trial emulation].
Article in Pravention und Gesundheitsforderung, 2023. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Treatment decisions that are dependent on if-then rules on disease status or prior treatment information are dynamic treatment decisions. The effectiveness of dynamic treatment strategies is often investigated with real-world data (RWD). As many different therapy strategies can be observed in routine practice, RWD offer great potential. However, RWD are always associated with risks for several biases including immortal time and selection bias. Objectives: This article shows how to adequately compare dynamic treatment strategies and identify the optimal strategy. A case study is used to illustrate the causal approach described above. Materials and methods: We describe how the combination of three counterfactual approaches allows causal interpretation of results. We describe causal diagrams, target trial emulation, and g-methods. The described causal approach is illustrated by a case study examining when antiviral therapy should be initiated in treatment-naïve patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Results: Causal diagrams visualize underlying causal processes. They help to identify parameters that need to be considered in the analysis. Target trial emulation simulates a randomized clinical trial by defining all possible dynamic strategies, copying ("cloning") patient data, and assigning each patient to each treatment arm. In a causal per protocol analysis, all patients violating the protocol of a given treatment strategy are censored. Informative censoring is adjusted by g-methods. The expected outcomes of each treatment strategy are simulated and compared. Conclusions: Dynamic treatment strategies can be adequately compared using RWD when three causal approaches are combined, and the necessary data are available. These approaches are (1) causal diagrams, (2) target trial emulation, and (3) statistical g-methods.
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.