Generalizability of cognitive results from clinical trial participants to an older adult population: Addressing external validity

Author:

Aslanyan Vahan1,Pa Judy2,Hodis Howard N.134,St. John Jan13,Kono Naoko13,Henderson Victor W.5,Mack Wendy J13,

Affiliation:

1. Department of Population and Public Health Sciences Keck School of Medicine University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA

2. Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) Department of Neurosciences University of California, San Diego La Jolla California USA

3. Atherosclerosis Research Unit Keck School of Medicine University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA

4. Department of Medicine Keck School of Medicine University of Southern California Los Angeles California USA

5. Departments of Epidemiology and Population Health and of Neurology and Neurological Sciences School of Medicine Stanford University Stanford California USA

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionStudy inclusion criteria and recruitment practices limit the generalizability of randomized‐controlled trial (RCT) results. Statistical modeling could enhance generalizability of outcomes. To illustrate this, the cognition–depression relationship was assessed with and without adjustment relative to the target population of older women.MethodsRandomized participants from four RCTs and non‐randomized participants from two cohorts were included in this study. Prediction models estimated probability of being randomized into trials from target populations. These probabilities were used for inverse odds weighting relative to target populations. Weighted linear regression was used to assess the depression–cognition relationship.ResultsThere was no depression–cognition relationship in the combined randomized sample. After applying weights relative to a representative cohort, negative relationships were observed. After applying weights relative to a non‐representative cohort, bias of estimates increased.DiscussionQuantitative approaches to transportability using representative samples may explain the absence of a‐priori established relationships in RCTs.

Funder

National Institutes of Health

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,Neurology (clinical)

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3