Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41291767›Full record

SynthesisTrials2025

Who benefits? Uncovering hidden heterogeneity of treatment effects in adaptive trials using Bayesian methods: a systematic review.

Rachel Giblon, Chengyang Gao, Kuan Liu, Yongdong Ouyang, Jessie Cunningham, Allen L Pimienta, Ewan C Goligher, Anna Heath

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Rachel GiblonDivision of Biostatistics, University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, ON, Canada. rachel.giblon@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0110-8557
Chengyang GaoChild Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, 686 Bay Street, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kuan LiuInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Yongdong OuyangDivision of Biostatistics, University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jessie CunninghamSickKids Hospital Library, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Allen L PimientaDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ewan C GoligherInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Anna HeathDivision of Biostatistics, University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2021-03366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdaptive clinical trials increasingly aim to detect heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) to guide personalized care. However, most adaptive designs rely on predefined subgroups and are limited in their ability to uncover unknown or complex sources of HTE. Bayesian statistical methods offer a flexible alternative, enabling real-time learning and adaptation within trials. This review evaluates Bayesian methods used to detect hidden HTE in adaptive clinical trials, with attention to their methodological innovations, operating characteristics, and consideration of equity and inclusion in trial design.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases to identify original studies that developed Bayesian methods for detecting unknown HTE within adaptive clinical trial designs. Eligible studies were reviewed and synthesized based on design features, statistical methodology, operating characteristics, reproducibility, and whether equity-related factors were explicitly considered. Equity considerations included whether studies incorporated variables related to underrepresented populations-such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, or geography-examined intersectional subgroup effects, or explicitly framed their methods as tools to address health disparities.

resultsOf 2826 screened records, seven studies met inclusion criteria. Bayesian methods included random partition models, spatial models, logistic regression with dimension reduction, adaptive randomization using machine learning classifiers, and adaptive enrichment or platform designs incorporating model averaging or latent subgroup estimation. In simulation studies, these methods often showed improvements in subgroup detection, efficiency, or power relative to non-Bayesian comparators. None were tested using real-world trial data. Reproducibility was limited overall, with analytic code only available for the three most recent studies. Notably, none explicitly framed their methods as tools to address inequities in treatment outcomes across population subgroups.

conclusionsThe small number of simulation-based studies illustrates preliminary but promising directions for applying Bayesian methods to detect HTE in adaptive clinical trials. While these approaches demonstrate potential to enhance trial adaptability, scalability, and inclusiveness, current evidence remains limited and largely conceptual. Incorporating an equity lens into future methodological development, alongside greater emphasis on empirical validation and open science practices, will be essential to determine their practical value in advancing equitable clinical research.

Indexed as

Adaptive Clinical Trials as TopicResearch DesignBayes TheoremHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsTreatment Effect HeterogeneityTreatment OutcomeAdaptive clinical trialsBayesian statisticsHealth equityHeterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE)Personalized medicineStatistical methodsSubgroup analysisTrial design

Identifiers

PMID41291767
PMCPMC12751210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.