Home › Research › Clinical safety
Comparing clinical trial population representativeness to real-world populations: an external validity analysis encompassing 43 895 trials and 5 685 738 individuals across 989 unique drugs and 286 conditions in England
Tan YY, Papez V, Chang WH, Mueller SH, Denaxas S, Lai AG.. The lancet. Healthy longevity, 2022-09-20
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Poor external validity can result in inadequate treatment decision information. Patients with dementia with an anti-dementia prescription and contraindicated cardiovascular condition had a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1·20 [95% CI 1·13-1·28 ; p<0·0001]) compared with patients with dementia without a contraindicated cardiovascular condition. Patients with dementia with comorbid delirium (HR 1·25 [95% CI 1·06-1·48]; p<0·0088), intellectual disability (HR 2·72 [95% CI 1·53-4·81]; p=0·0006), and schizophrenia and schizotypal delusional disorders (HR 1·36 [95% CI 1·02-1·82]; p=0·036) had a higher risk of mortality compared with patients with dementia without these conditions.
Key findings
- Poor external validity can result in inadequate treatment decision information.
- Patients with dementia with an anti-dementia prescription and contraindicated cardiovascular condition had a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1·20 [95% CI 1·13-1·28 ; p<0·0001]) compared with patients with dementia without a contraindicated cardiovascular condition.
- Patients with dementia with comorbid delirium (HR 1·25 [95% CI 1·06-1·48]; p<0·0088), intellectual disability (HR 2·72 [95% CI 1·53-4·81]; p=0·0006), and schizophrenia and schizotypal delusional disorders (HR 1·36 [95% CI 1·02-1·82]; p=0·036) had a higher risk of mortality compared with patients with dementia without these conditions.
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The lancet. Healthy longevity) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36150402) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Tan, Y. Y., Papez, V., Chang, W. H., Mueller, S. H., Denaxas, S., & Lai, A. G. (2022). Comparing clinical trial population representativeness to real-world populations: an external validity analysis encompassing 43 895 trials and 5 685 738 individuals across 989 unique drugs and 286 conditions in England. The lancet. Healthy longevity. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2666-7568(22)00186-6
Vancouver
Tan YY, Papez V, Chang WH, Mueller SH, Denaxas S, Lai AG. Comparing clinical trial population representativeness to real-world populations: an external validity analysis encompassing 43 895 trials and 5 685 738 individuals across 989 unique drugs and 286 conditions in England. The lancet. Healthy longevity. 2022. doi:10.1016/s2666-7568(22)00186-6. PMID: 36150402.
BibTeX
@article{tan2022-36150402,
author = {Tan, Y. Y. and Papez, V. and Chang, W. H. and Mueller, S. H. and Denaxas, S. and Lai, A. G.},
title = {{Comparing clinical trial population representativeness to real-world populations: an external validity analysis encompassing 43 895 trials and 5 685 738 individuals across 989 unique drugs and 286 conditions in England}},
journal = {The lancet. Healthy longevity},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1016/s2666-7568(22)00186-6},
pmid = {36150402},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s2666-7568(22)00186-6}
}
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also in Clinical safety
96 studies in the library are filed under Clinical safety with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Clinical safety hub.