Evaluating the Generalisability of Trial Results: Introducing a Centre- and Trial-Level Generalisability Index
PharmacoEconomics, ISSN: 1179-2027, Vol: 33, Issue: 11, Page: 1195-1214
2015
- 8Citations
- 31Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations8
- Citation Indexes8
- CrossRef1
- Captures31
- Readers31
- 31
Article Description
Background: Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruit centres representatively, which may limit the external validity of trial results. Objective: The aim of this study was to propose a proof-of-concept method of assessing the generalisability of the clinical and cost-effectiveness findings of a given RCT. Methods: We developed a generalisability index (Gix), informed by centre-level characteristics, as a measure of centre and trial representativeness. The centre-level Gix quantifies how representative a centre is in relation to its jurisdiction, e.g. a country or health authority. The trial-level Gix quantifies how representative trial recruitment is in relation to clinical practice in the jurisdiction. Taking a real-world RCT as a case study and assuming trial-wide results to represent ‘true jurisdiction values’, we used simulation methods to recreate 5000 RCTs and investigate the relationship between trial representativeness, reflected by the standardised trial-Gix, and the deviation of simulated trial results from the ‘true values’. Results: The simulation study provides evidence that trial results (odds ratio for the primary outcome and incremental quality-adjusted life-years) were influenced by the representativeness of the sample of recruiting centres. Simulated RCTs with the closest results to the ‘true values’ were those whose recruitment closely mirrored the jurisdiction-wide context. Results appeared robust to six alternative specifications of the Gix. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that an unrepresentative selection of centres limits the external validity of trial results. The Gix may be a valuable tool to help facilitate rational selection of trial centres and ensure the generalisability of results at the jurisdiction level.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84944513497&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0298-3; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26068945; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-015-0298-3; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0298-3; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40273-015-0298-3
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know