Definitions of Validity Terms for Use in Discussions of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Yasaman Yazdani, Monica Taljaard, Merrick Zwarenstein
{"title":"Definitions of Validity Terms for Use in Discussions of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Yasaman Yazdani, Monica Taljaard, Merrick Zwarenstein","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We review existing definitions and usages of validity terms and propose a single definition for each term for use in communicating inferences from Randomized Controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two trialists and a statistician reviewed definitions in various dictionaries and literature to identify confusions and propose unified definition for each term.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We propose the following disambiguated and mutually coherent set of definitions for validity terms: TARGET POPULATION: A well-defined population, for whom inferences from an RCT are asserted as valid by the investigators or by other users.</p><p><strong>Internal validity: </strong>An assertion that an inference from an RCT is at low risk of confounding (Distortion of the effects of the intervention by differences in prognostic factors between arms of the trial other than the difference in intervention exposure).</p><p><strong>External validity: </strong>An umbrella term asserting that an internally valid inference from an RCT applies to a target population specified by the investigators or by other users, requiring any of three justifications: representativeness, applicability or extrapolatability.</p><p><strong>Representativeness: </strong>An assertion of external validity of an inference based on the statistical representativeness of the participants, as a random sample of the source (and target) population.</p><p><strong>Applicability: </strong>An assertion of the external validity of an inference based on subjective assessment of the similarity in context and in distribution of known predictors of outcome between the participant sample and the target population.</p><p><strong>Extrapolatability: </strong>An assertion of the external validity of an inference from an RCT to a target population based on a common mechanism of action. BIAS: Bias is the opposite of validity and may be internal, due to confounding from systematic error in design, measurement, and analysis; or external, due to mismatch between the population represented by the RCT participants and their setting, and the target population and its context.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With wide uptake, this coherent set of definitions for key terms related to validity could improve understanding and design of RCTs.</p>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"111752"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111752","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We review existing definitions and usages of validity terms and propose a single definition for each term for use in communicating inferences from Randomized Controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods: Two trialists and a statistician reviewed definitions in various dictionaries and literature to identify confusions and propose unified definition for each term.

Results: We propose the following disambiguated and mutually coherent set of definitions for validity terms: TARGET POPULATION: A well-defined population, for whom inferences from an RCT are asserted as valid by the investigators or by other users.

Internal validity: An assertion that an inference from an RCT is at low risk of confounding (Distortion of the effects of the intervention by differences in prognostic factors between arms of the trial other than the difference in intervention exposure).

External validity: An umbrella term asserting that an internally valid inference from an RCT applies to a target population specified by the investigators or by other users, requiring any of three justifications: representativeness, applicability or extrapolatability.

Representativeness: An assertion of external validity of an inference based on the statistical representativeness of the participants, as a random sample of the source (and target) population.

Applicability: An assertion of the external validity of an inference based on subjective assessment of the similarity in context and in distribution of known predictors of outcome between the participant sample and the target population.

Extrapolatability: An assertion of the external validity of an inference from an RCT to a target population based on a common mechanism of action. BIAS: Bias is the opposite of validity and may be internal, due to confounding from systematic error in design, measurement, and analysis; or external, due to mismatch between the population represented by the RCT participants and their setting, and the target population and its context.

Conclusion: With wide uptake, this coherent set of definitions for key terms related to validity could improve understanding and design of RCTs.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
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