Design differences explain variation in results between randomized trials and their non-randomized emulations
Heyard, R.; Held, L.; Schneeweiss, S.; Wang, S.
Show abstract
ObjectivesWhile randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered a standard for evidence on the efficacy of medical treatments, non-randomized real-world evidence (RWE) studies using data from health insurance claims or electronic health records can provide important complementary evidence. The use of RWE to inform decision-making has been questioned because of concerns regarding confounding in non-randomized studies and the use of secondary data. RCT-DUPLICATE was a demonstration project that emulated the design of 32 RCTs with non-randomized RWE studies. We sought to explore how emulation differences relate to variation in results between the RCT-RWE study pairs. MethodsWe include all RCT-RWE study pairs from RCT-DUPLICATE where the measure of effect was a hazard ratio and use exploratory meta-regression methods to explain differences and variation in the effect sizes between the results from the RCT and the RWE study. The considered explanatory variables are related to design and population differences. ResultsMost of the observed variation in effect estimates between RCT-RWE study pairs in this sample could be explained by three emulation differences in the meta-regression model: (i) in-hospital start of treatment (not observed in claims data), (ii) discontinuation of certain baseline therapies at randomization (not part of clinical practice), (iii) delayed onset of drug effects (missed by short medication persistence in clinical practice). ConclusionsThis analysis suggests that a substantial proportion of the observed variation between results from RCTs and RWE studies can be attributed to design emulation differences. What is already known on this topicReal-world evidence (RWE) studies can complement randomized controlled trials (RCT) by providing insights on the effectiveness of a medical treatment in clinical practice. Concerns about confounding have limited the use of RWE studies in clinical practice and policy decisions. What this study addsA large share of the observed variation in results between RCT-RWE study pairs could be explained by design emulation differences.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 97%
- Approaches in Analyzing Predictors of Trial Failure: A Scoping Review and Meta-epidemiological study 96%
- Does pre-notification increase questionnaire response rates: a nested randomised control trial 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 96%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 95%
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 97%
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 95%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 96%
- Evaluation of statistical methods used to meta-analyse results from interrupted time series studies: a simulation study 95%
- Synthesizing evidence from the earliest studies to support decision-making: to what extent could the evidence be reliable? 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 96%
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 96%
- UKCTOCS Update: Applying insights of delayed effects in cancer screening trials to the long-term follow-up mortality analysis 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.