仿真
随机对照试验
背景(考古学)
医学物理学
标杆管理
医学
混淆
计算机科学
系统回顾
临床试验
梅德林
内科学
心理学
社会心理学
生物
古生物学
营销
政治学
法学
业务
作者
Jennifer R. Rider,Asher Wasserman,Lukas Slipski,Gillis Carrigan,Raymond A. Harvey,Xiaolong Jiao,Lynn McRoy,Nelson D. Pace,Lauren B. Becnel,Amanda Bruno,Joy C. Eckert,P. Hodgkins,Purva Jain,David Merola,Osayi E. Ovbiosa,Yanina Natanzon,Simone Pinheiro,Jameson Quinn,Carla Rodriguez‐Watson,Ulka B. Campbell
摘要
Abstract By evaluating published emulations of oncology RCTs studies in which both the active and comparator groups are sourced from RWD and target trial results are available for benchmarking, this systematic review aims to gain insight into factors related to emulation performance. Thirteen oncology emulation studies using various types of RWD were identified through an online database search of PubMed through 2022. Based on the ROBINS-I tool, most studies (N=8) had a serious risk of overall bias driven by risk of bias from confounding. Approximately half of the studies (N=6) fully proxied the RCT entry criteria. Of 11 RWD studies that provided sufficient detail to quantify emulation performance, the emulation HR estimate fell within the 95% CI of the trial estimate in 9 of the studies. There were no clear trends between risk of bias or degree to which the entry criteria were proxied and emulation performance. Findings may have been influenced by publication bias and researcher degrees of freedom, as only one emulation study pre-registered its protocol. Tools for comprehensively characterizing factors that affect emulation performance, including the real-world clinical context as it relates to the RCT research question, are needed to evaluate the feasibility of a RCT emulation.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI