Generalizability in real-world trials

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Anatol-Fiete Näher, Marvin Kopka, Felix Balzer, Matthias Schulte-Althoff
{"title":"Generalizability in real-world trials","authors":"Anatol-Fiete Näher,&nbsp;Marvin Kopka,&nbsp;Felix Balzer,&nbsp;Matthias Schulte-Althoff","doi":"10.1111/cts.13886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Real-world evidence (RWE) trials have a key advantage over conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to their potentially better generalizability. High generalizability of study results facilitates new biological insights and enables targeted therapeutic strategies. Random sampling of RWE trial participants is regarded as the gold standard for generalizability. Additionally, the use of sample correction procedures can increase the generalizability of trial results, even when using nonrandomly sampled real-world data (RWD). This study presents descriptive evidence on the extent to which the design of currently planned or already conducted RWE trials takes sampling into account. It also examines whether random sampling or procedures for correcting nonrandom samples are considered. Based on text mining of publicly available metadata provided during registrations of RWE trials on clinicaltrials.gov, EU-PAS, and the OSF-RWE registry, it is shown that the share of RWE trial registrations with information on sampling increased from 65.27% in 2002 to 97.43% in 2022, with a corresponding increase from 14.79% to 28.30% for trials with random samples. For RWE trials with nonrandom samples, there is an increase from 0.00% to 0.95% of trials in which sample correction procedures are used. We conclude that the potential benefits of RWD in terms of generalizing trial results are not yet being fully realized.</p>","PeriodicalId":50610,"journal":{"name":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11267629/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.13886","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Real-world evidence (RWE) trials have a key advantage over conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to their potentially better generalizability. High generalizability of study results facilitates new biological insights and enables targeted therapeutic strategies. Random sampling of RWE trial participants is regarded as the gold standard for generalizability. Additionally, the use of sample correction procedures can increase the generalizability of trial results, even when using nonrandomly sampled real-world data (RWD). This study presents descriptive evidence on the extent to which the design of currently planned or already conducted RWE trials takes sampling into account. It also examines whether random sampling or procedures for correcting nonrandom samples are considered. Based on text mining of publicly available metadata provided during registrations of RWE trials on clinicaltrials.gov, EU-PAS, and the OSF-RWE registry, it is shown that the share of RWE trial registrations with information on sampling increased from 65.27% in 2002 to 97.43% in 2022, with a corresponding increase from 14.79% to 28.30% for trials with random samples. For RWE trials with nonrandom samples, there is an increase from 0.00% to 0.95% of trials in which sample correction procedures are used. We conclude that the potential benefits of RWD in terms of generalizing trial results are not yet being fully realized.

Abstract Image

真实世界试验的可推广性
与传统的随机对照试验(RCT)相比,真实世界证据试验(RWE)的一个主要优势在于其潜在的更好的普适性。研究结果的高度可推广性有助于获得新的生物学见解,并实现有针对性的治疗策略。随机取样被认为是通用性的黄金标准。此外,即使使用非随机抽样的真实世界数据(RWD),使用样本校正程序也能提高试验结果的可推广性。本研究提供了描述性证据,说明目前计划进行或已经进行的 RWE 试验的设计在多大程度上考虑了抽样因素。研究还考察了是否考虑了随机抽样或纠正非随机抽样的程序。根据对在 clinicaltrials.gov、EU-PAS 和 OSF-RWE 注册表上注册的 RWE 试验所提供的公开元数据进行文本挖掘,结果显示,包含抽样信息的 RWE 试验注册所占比例从 2002 年的 65.27% 增加到 2022 年的 97.43%,随机抽样试验所占比例也相应从 14.79% 增加到 28.30%。对于采用非随机抽样的 RWE 试验,使用样本校正程序的试验从 0.00% 增加到 0.95%。我们的结论是,RWD 在推广试验结果方面的潜在优势尚未得到充分发挥。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
234
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Science (CTS), an official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, highlights original translational medicine research that helps bridge laboratory discoveries with the diagnosis and treatment of human disease. Translational medicine is a multi-faceted discipline with a focus on translational therapeutics. In a broad sense, translational medicine bridges across the discovery, development, regulation, and utilization spectrum. Research may appear as Full Articles, Brief Reports, Commentaries, Phase Forwards (clinical trials), Reviews, or Tutorials. CTS also includes invited didactic content that covers the connections between clinical pharmacology and translational medicine. Best-in-class methodologies and best practices are also welcomed as Tutorials. These additional features provide context for research articles and facilitate understanding for a wide array of individuals interested in clinical and translational science. CTS welcomes high quality, scientifically sound, original manuscripts focused on clinical pharmacology and translational science, including animal, in vitro, in silico, and clinical studies supporting the breadth of drug discovery, development, regulation and clinical use of both traditional drugs and innovative modalities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信