How to generalize efficacy results of randomized trials: recommendations based on a systematic review of possible approaches

Piet N. Post · Hans de Beer · Gordon Henry Guyatt

43 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the preferred source for evidence for the effect of treatment. However, patients participating in RCTs often manifest important differences from patients seen in practice. Therefore, guideline developers have to decide whether the results are generalizable to the target population not represented in RCTs. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify methods to decide whether to generalize the results from RCTs to patients who were not represented in these trials. RESULTS: One approach is to examine the in- and exclusion criteria of trials and infer from these whether the trial population was sufficiently representative. Other authors suggest, because of the inclusion of a broader range of patients, reliance on observational studies if no direct evidence for the target population is available. Another approach is to apply the relative effect of treatment found in trials to patients in practice unless there is a compelling reason to believe the results would differ substantially as a function of particular characteristics of those patients. Although there are exceptions, this approach is supported by empirical evidence that, in general, relative effect of treatment on benefit outcomes seldom differs to an important extent across subgroups of patients. CONCLUSION: We propose this last approach: focusing on RCTs unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Compelling reasons will most often be found with respect to issues of rare adverse effects, for which observational studies are likely to provide the best estimates.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 43 citations exist upstream.

References

2000Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs 2003Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies 2007Eligibility Criteria of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals 1994Users' Guides to the Medical Literature 2010Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses 2002Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta‐analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes 2011Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials 2002Can we individualize the ‘number needed to treat’? An empirical study of summary effect measures in meta-analyses

Cited by

2018Implementing evidence‐based treatment protocols: Flexibility within fidelity.2021Is meta-analysis of RCTs assessing the efficacy of interventions a reliable source of evidence for therapeutic decisions?2022Project Rebuild the Evidence Base (REB): a method to interpret randomised clinical trials and their meta-analysis to present solid benefit-risk assessments to patients.2021Treatment Effectiveness and the Russo–Williamson Thesis, EBM+, and Bradford Hill's Viewpoints

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.