Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The increased adoption of the internet, social media, wearable devices, e-health services, and other technology-driven services in medicine and healthcare has led to the rapid generation of various types of digital data, providing a valuable data source beyond the confines of traditional clinical trials, epidemiological studies, and lab-based experiments. Methods We provide a brief overview on the type and sources of real-world data and the common models and approaches to utilize and analyze real-world data. We discuss the challenges and opportunities of using real-world data for evidence-based decision making This review does not aim to be comprehensive or cover all aspects of the intriguing topic on RWD (from both the research and practical perspectives) but serves as a primer and provides useful sources for readers who interested in this topic. Results and Conclusions Real-world hold great potential for generating real-world evidence for designing and conducting confirmatory trials and answering questions that may not be addressed otherwise. The voluminosity and complexity of real-world data also call for development of more appropriate, sophisticated, and innovative data processing and analysis techniques while maintaining scientific rigor in research findings, and attentions to data ethics to harness the power of real-world data.

Objective Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) have been paid more and more attention in recent years. We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of cohort studies using real-world data (RWD) published between 2013 and 2021 and analyze the possible factors. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search in Medline and Embase through the OVID interface for cohort studies published from 2013 to 2021 on April 29, 2022. Studies aimed at comparing the effectiveness or safety of exposure factors in the real-world setting were included. The evaluation was based on the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. Agreement for inclusion and evaluation was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. Pearson chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze the possible factors, including the release of RECORD, journal IFs, and article citations. Bonferroni’s correction was conducted for multiple comparisons. Interrupted time series analysis was performed to display the changes in report quality over time. Results 187 articles were finally included. The mean ± SD of the percentage of adequately reported items in the 187 articles was 44.7 ± 14.3 with a range of 11.1–87%. Of 23 items, the adequate reporting rate of 10 items reached 50%, and the reporting rate of some vital items was inadequate. After Bonferroni’s correction, the reporting of only one item significantly improved after the release of RECORD and there was no significant improvement in the overall report quality. For interrupted time series analysis, there were no significant changes in the slope (p = 0.42) and level (p = 0.12) of adequate reporting rate. The journal IFs and citations were respectively related to 2 areas and the former significantly higher in high-reporting quality articles. Conclusion The endorsement of the RECORD cheklist was generally inadequate in cohort studies using RWD and has not improved in recent years. We encourage researchers to endorse relevant guidelines when utilizing RWD for research.

Background Measuring the performance of models that predict individualized treatment effect is challenging because the outcomes of two alternative treatments are inherently unobservable in one patient. The C-for-benefit was proposed to measure discriminative ability. However, measures of calibration and overall performance are still lacking. We aimed to propose metrics of calibration and overall performance for models predicting treatment effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods Similar to the previously proposed C-for-benefit, we defined observed pairwise treatment effect as the difference between outcomes in pairs of matched patients with different treatment assignment. We match each untreated patient with the nearest treated patient based on the Mahalanobis distance between patient characteristics. Then, we define the E avg -for-benefit, E 50 -for-benefit, and E 90 -for-benefit as the average, median, and 90 th quantile of the absolute distance between the predicted pairwise treatment effects and local-regression-smoothed observed pairwise treatment effects. Furthermore, we define the cross-entropy-for-benefit and Brier-for-benefit as the logarithmic and average squared distance between predicted and observed pairwise treatment effects. In a simulation study, the metric values of deliberately “perturbed models” were compared to those of the data-generating model, i.e., “optimal model”. To illustrate these performance metrics, different modeling approaches for predicting treatment effect are applied to the data of the Diabetes Prevention Program: 1) a risk modelling approach with restricted cubic splines; 2) an effect modelling approach including penalized treatment interactions; and 3) the causal forest. Results As desired, performance metric values of “perturbed models” were consistently worse than those of the “optimal model” (E avg -for-benefit ≥ 0.043 versus 0.002, E 50 -for-benefit ≥ 0.032 versus 0.001, E 90 -for-benefit ≥ 0.084 versus 0.004, cross-entropy-for-benefit ≥ 0.765 versus 0.750, Brier-for-benefit ≥ 0.220 versus 0.218). Calibration, discriminative ability, and overall performance of three different models were similar in the case study. The proposed metrics were implemented in a publicly available R-package “HTEPredictionMetrics”. Conclusion The proposed metrics are useful to assess the calibration and overall performance of models predicting treatment effect in RCTs.

To estimate causal effects, analysts performing observational studies in health settings utilize several strategies to mitigate bias due to confounding by indication. There are two broad classes of approaches for these purposes: use of confounders and instrumental variables (IVs). Because such approaches are largely characterized by untestable assumptions, analysts must operate under an indefinite paradigm that these methods will work imperfectly. In this tutorial, we formalize a set of general principles and heuristics for estimating causal effects in the two approaches when the assumptions are potentially violated. This crucially requires reframing the process of observational studies as hypothesizing potential scenarios where the estimates from one approach are less inconsistent than the other. While most of our discussion of methodology centers around the linear setting, we touch upon complexities in non-linear settings and flexible procedures such as target minimum loss-based estimation and double machine learning. To demonstrate the application of our principles, we investigate the use of donepezil off-label for mild cognitive impairment. We compare and contrast results from confounder and IV methods, traditional and flexible, within our analysis and to a similar observational study and clinical trial.

Background The Interrupted Time Series (ITS) is a robust design for evaluating public health and policy interventions or exposures when randomisation may be infeasible. Several statistical methods are available for the analysis and meta-analysis of ITS studies. We sought to empirically compare available methods when applied to real-world ITS data. Methods We sourced ITS data from published meta-analyses to create an online data repository. Each dataset was re-analysed using two ITS estimation methods. The level- and slope-change effect estimates (and standard errors) were calculated and combined using fixed-effect and four random-effects meta-analysis methods. We examined differences in meta-analytic level- and slope-change estimates, their 95% confidence intervals, p-values, and estimates of heterogeneity across the statistical methods. Results Of 40 eligible meta-analyses, data from 17 meta-analyses including 282 ITS studies were obtained (predominantly investigating the effects of public health interruptions (88%)) and analysed. We found that on average , the meta-analytic effect estimates, their standard errors and between-study variances were not sensitive to meta-analysis method choice, irrespective of the ITS analysis method. However, across ITS analysis methods, for any given meta-analysis, there could be small to moderate differences in meta-analytic effect estimates, and important differences in the meta-analytic standard errors. Furthermore, the confidence interval widths and p -values for the meta-analytic effect estimates varied depending on the choice of confidence interval method and ITS analysis method. Conclusions Our empirical study showed that meta-analysis effect estimates, their standard errors, confidence interval widths and p -values can be affected by statistical method choice. These differences may importantly impact interpretations and conclusions of a meta-analysis and suggest that the statistical methods are not interchangeable in practice.

Background Multiple imputation (MI) is an established technique for handling missing data in observational studies. Joint modelling (JM) and fully conditional specification (FCS) are commonly used methods for imputing multilevel data. However, MI methods for multilevel ordinal outcome variables have not been well studied, especially when cluster size is informative on the outcome. The purpose of this study is to describe and compare different MI strategies for dealing with multilevel ordinal outcomes when informative cluster size (ICS) exists. Methods We conducted comprehensive Monte Carlo simulation studies to compare the performance of five strategies: complete case analysis (CCA), FCS, FCS+CS (including cluster size (CS) in the imputation model), JM, and JM+CS under various scenarios. We evaluated their performance using a proportional odds logistic regression model estimated with cluster weighted generalized estimating equations (CWGEE). Results The simulation results showed that including CS in the imputation model can significantly improve estimation accuracy when ICS exists. FCS provided more accurate and robust estimation than JM, followed by CCA for multilevel ordinal outcomes. We further applied these strategies to a real dental study to assess the association between metabolic syndrome and clinical attachment loss scores. The results based on FCS + CS indicated that the power of the analysis would increase after carrying out the appropriate MI strategy. Conclusions MI is an effective tool to increase the accuracy and power of the downstream statistical analysis for missing ordinal outcomes. FCS slightly outperforms JM when imputing multilevel ordinal outcomes. When there is plausible ICS, we recommend including CS in the imputation phase.

Background Longitudinal matching can mitigate confounding in observational, real-world studies of time-dependent treatments. To date, these methods have required iterative, manual re-specifications to achieve covariate balance. We propose a longitudinal extension of genetic matching, a machine learning approach that automates balancing of covariate histories. We examine performance by comparing the proposed extension against baseline propensity score matching and time-dependent propensity score matching. Methods To evaluate comparative performance, we developed a Monte Carlo simulation framework that reflects a static treatment assigned at multiple time points. Data generation considers a treatment assignment model, a continuous outcome model, and underlying covariates. In simulation, we generated 1,000 datasets, each consisting of 1,000 subjects, and applied: (1) nearest neighbour matching on time-invariant, baseline propensity scores; (2) sequential risk set matching on time-dependent propensity scores; and (3) longitudinal genetic matching on time-dependent covariates. To measure comparative performance, we estimated covariate balance, efficiency, bias, and root mean squared error (RMSE) of treatment effect estimates. In scenario analysis, we varied underlying assumptions for assumed covariate distributions, correlations, treatment assignment models, and outcome models. Results In all scenarios, baseline propensity score matching resulted in biased effect estimation in the presence of time-dependent confounding, with mean bias ranging from 29.7% to 37.2%. In contrast, time-dependent propensity score matching and longitudinal genetic matching achieved stronger covariate balance and yielded less biased estimation, with mean bias ranging from 0.7% to 13.7%. Across scenarios, longitudinal genetic matching achieved similar or better performance than time-dependent propensity score matching without requiring manual re-specifications or normality of covariates. Conclusions While the most appropriate longitudinal method will depend on research questions and underlying data patterns, our study can help guide these decisions. Simulation results demonstrate the validity of our longitudinal genetic matching approach for supporting future real-world assessments of treatments accessible at multiple time points.

Background To control emerging diseases, governments often have to make decisions based on limited evidence. The effective or temporal reproductive number is used to estimate the expected number of new cases caused by an infectious person in a partially susceptible population. While the temporal dynamic is captured in the temporal reproduction number, the dominant approach is currently based on modeling that implicitly treats people within a population as geographically well mixed. Methods In this study we aimed to develop a generic and robust methodology for estimating spatiotemporal dynamic measures that can be instantaneously computed for each location and time within a Bayesian model selection and averaging framework. A simulation study was conducted to demonstrate robustness of the method. A case study was provided of a real-world application to COVID-19 national surveillance data in Thailand. Results Overall, the proposed method allowed for estimation of different scenarios of reproduction numbers in the simulation study. The model selection chose the true serial interval when included in our study whereas model averaging yielded the weighted outcome which could be less accurate than model selection. In the case study of COVID-19 in Thailand, the best model based on model selection and averaging criteria had a similar trend to real data and was consistent with previously published findings in the country. Conclusions The method yielded robust estimation in several simulated scenarios of force of transmission with computing flexibility and practical benefits. Thus, this development can be suitable and practically useful for surveillance applications especially for newly emerging diseases. As new outbreak waves continue to develop and the risk changes on both local and global scales, our work can facilitate policymaking for timely disease control.

Background Tests have false positive or false negative results, which, if not properly accounted for, may provide misleading apparent prevalence estimates based on the observed rate of positive tests and not the true disease prevalence estimates. Methods to estimate the true prevalence of disease, adjusting for the sensitivity and the specificity of the diagnostic tests are available and can be applied, though, such procedures can be cumbersome to researchers with or without a solid statistical background. This manuscript introduces a web-based application that integrates statistical methods for Bayesian inference of true disease prevalence based on prior elicitation for the accuracy of the diagnostic tests. This tool allows practitioners to simultaneously analyse and visualize results while using interactive sliders and output prior/posterior plots. Methods - implementation Three methods for prevalence prior elicitation and four core families of Bayesian methods have been combined and incorporated in this web tool. | tPRiors | user interface has been developed with R and Shiny and may be freely accessed on-line. Results | tPRiors | allows researchers to use preloaded data or upload their own datasets and perform analysis on either single or multiple population groups clusters, allowing, if needed, for excess zero prevalence. The final report is exported in raw parts either as.rdata or.png files and can be further analysed. We utilize a real multiple-population and a toy single-population dataset to demonstrate the robustness and capabilities of | tPRiors |. Conclusions We expect | tPRiors | to be helpful for researchers interested in true disease prevalence estimation and who are keen on accounting for prior information. | tPRiors | acts both as a statistical tool and a simplified step-by-step statistical framework that facilitates the use of complex Bayesian methods. The application of | tPRiors | is expected to aid standardization of practices in the field of Bayesian modelling on subject and multiple group-based true prevalence estimation.

Machine learning models often use passively recorded sensor data streams as inputs to train machine learning models that predict outcomes captured through ecological momentary assessments (EMA). Despite the growth of mobile data collection, challenges in obtaining proper authorization to send notifications, receive background events, and perform background tasks persist. We investigated challenges faced by mobile sensing apps in real-world settings in order to develop design guidelines. For active data, we compared 2 prompting strategies: setup prompting, where the app requests authorization during its initial run, and contextual prompting, where authorization is requested when an event or notification occurs. Additionally, we evaluated 2 passive data collection paradigms: collection during scheduled background tasks and persistent reminders that trigger passive data collection. We investigated the following research questions (RQs): (RQ1) how do setup prompting and contextual prompting affect scheduled notification delivery and the response rate of notification-initiated EMA? (RQ2) Which authorization paradigm, setup or contextual prompting, is more successful in leading users to grant authorization to receive background events? and (RQ3) Which polling-based method, persistent reminders or scheduled background tasks, completes more background sessions? We developed mobile sensing apps for iOS and Android devices and tested them through a 30-day user study asking college students (n=145) about their stress levels. Participants responded to a daily EMA question to test active data collection. The sensing apps collected background location events, polled for passive data with persistent reminders, and scheduled background tasks to test passive data collection. For RQ1, setup and contextual prompting yielded no significant difference (ANOVA F =0.0227; P=.88) in EMA compliance, with an average of 23.4 (SD 7.36) out of 30 assessments completed. However, qualitative analysis revealed that contextual prompting on iOS devices resulted in inconsistent notification deliveries. For RQ2, contextual prompting for background events was 55.5% (χ =4.4; P=.04) more effective in gaining authorization. For RQ3, users demonstrated resistance to installing the persistent reminder, but when installed, the persistent reminder performed 226.5% more background sessions than traditional background tasks. We developed design guidelines for improving mobile sensing on consumer mobile devices based on our qualitative and quantitative results. Our qualitative results demonstrated that contextual prompts on iOS devices resulted in inconsistent notification deliveries, unlike setup prompting on Android devices. We therefore recommend using setup prompting for EMA when possible. We found that contextual prompting is more efficient for authorizing background events. We therefore recommend using contextual prompting for passive sensing. Finally, we conclude that developing a persistent reminder and requiring participants to install it provides an additional way to poll for sensor and user data and could improve data collection to support adaptive interventions powered by machine learning.