ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2026
Extending Inferences from a Randomized Trial to Trial-eligible and Treatment-candidate Target Populations: Examples of Generalizability and Transportability.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2026. 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
backgroundWhen decision makers use evidence from a randomized trial to inform population-level decisions, the target population they envision rarely aligns with the population of individuals who enrolled in the trial. Here, we extend inferences from the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART randomized trial (hereafter, the index trial), which compared the effects of bivalirudin and heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention on the risk of death, reinfarction, and bleeding, to two clinically relevant target populations: first, the trial-eligible population of individuals eligible for the index trial regardless of enrollment, and second, the treatment-candidate population of individuals who are considered candidates for bivalirudin and heparin under routine care, regardless of eligibility for the index trial.
methodsUsing data from the index trial, we fit logistic regression models for the outcome at 180 days in each group based on assigned treatment. We then standardized risk estimates to the baseline covariate distribution of the trial-eligible and treatment-candidate target populations, which were characterized using data from Swedish healthcare registries.
resultsThe estimated risk difference comparing bivalirudin versus heparin was -1.1% (-3.1%, 0.9%) in the trial-eligible population and -1.0% (-3.0%, 1.0%) in the treatment-candidate population. The corresponding risk ratios were 0.92 (0.80, 1.07) and 0.93 (0.80, 1.07), respectively, aligning closely with estimates from the index trial. Absolute risks in each treatment group were, however, between 0.8 and 1.2 percentage points higher in comparison with the index trial.
conclusionsEstimated risk ratios for the broader trial-eligible and treatment-candidate populations generally align with the findings from the index trial. While trials provide essential evidence for healthcare, questions often arise about wider, clinically relevant populations beyond the population of trial participants. By leveraging data from trials and observational data sources, we can attempt to address questions in these wider target populations.
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.