ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Statistical Methods to Adjust for Treatment Switching in Real-World Clinical Studies: A Scoping Review and Descriptive Comparison.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Real-world data from sources, such as patient registries and electronic health records, can complement randomized controlled trials by providing timely, generalizable insights that better reflect routine clinical practice. However, the absence of randomization can introduce bias, particularly when treatment switching-defined as deviation from or discontinuation of the initial treatment-is influenced by time-varying confounders, that is, variables that are associated with both treatment decisions and outcomes over time. This study presents a comprehensive overview of statistical methods used to adjust for treatment switching in real-world studies to improve causal inference. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies comparing at least two statistical methods for adjusting for treatment switching, from inception to December 2024. Forty-five studies were included, identifying four main categories of methods: (1) traditional approaches (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, as-treated, repeated measures); (2) propensity score-based methods (adjustment, matching, marginal structural models); (3) g-methods other than marginal structural models (g-computation, structural nested models, longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation); (4) methods addressing unmeasured confounding (regression calibration, instrumental variables). Traditional methods are straightforward, but often yield biased estimates in the presence of treatment switching. Advanced methods, such as g-methods, are designed to adjust for time-varying confounding and can produce less biased estimates, though they require complex modeling. Instrumental variables and regression calibration relax the assumption of no unmeasured confounding, but rely on strong, often untestable conditions. By evaluating each method's assumptions, strengths, and limitations, we support applied researchers in selecting appropriate methods to strengthen causal inference in real-world studies.
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.