Background Recent evidence suggests that there is often substantial variation in the benefits and harms across a trial population. We aimed to identify regression modeling approaches that assess heterogeneity of treatment effect within a randomized clinical trial. Methods We performed a literature review using a broad search strategy, complemented by suggestions of a technical expert panel. Results The approaches are classified into 3 categories: 1) Risk-based methods (11 papers) use only prognostic factors to define patient subgroups, relying on the mathematical dependency of the absolute risk difference on baseline risk; 2) Treatment effect modeling methods (9 papers) use both prognostic factors and treatment effect modifiers to explore characteristics that interact with the effects of therapy on a relative scale. These methods couple data-driven subgroup identification with approaches to prevent overfitting, such as penalization or use of separate data sets for subgroup identification and effect estimation. 3) Optimal treatment regime methods (12 papers) focus primarily on treatment effect modifiers to classify the trial population into those who benefit from treatment and those who do not. Finally, we also identified papers which describe model evaluation methods (4 papers). Conclusions Three classes of approaches were identified to assess heterogeneity of treatment effect. Methodological research, including both simulations and empirical evaluations, is required to compare the available methods in different settings and to derive well-informed guidance for their application in RCT analysis.

Objective This systematic review aims to assess how information from unstructured text is used to develop and validate clinical prognostic prediction models. We summarize the prediction problems and methodological landscape and determine whether using text data in addition to more commonly used structured data improves the prediction performance. Materials and Methods We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify studies that developed prognostic prediction models using information extracted from unstructured text in a data-driven manner, published in the period from January 2005 to March 2021. Data items were extracted, analyzed, and a meta-analysis of the model performance was carried out to assess the added value of text to structured-data models. Results We identified 126 studies that described 145 clinical prediction problems. Combining text and structured data improved model performance, compared with using only text or only structured data. In these studies, a wide variety of dense and sparse numeric text representations were combined with both deep learning and more traditional machine learning methods. External validation, public availability, and attention for the explainability of the developed models were limited. Conclusion The use of unstructured text in the development of prognostic prediction models has been found beneficial in addition to structured data in most studies. The text data are source of valuable information for prediction model development and should not be neglected. We suggest a future focus on explainability and external validation of the developed models, promoting robust and trustworthy prediction models in clinical practice.

There is a strong and continuously growing interest in using large electronic healthcare databases to study health outcomes and the effects of pharmaceutical products. However, concerns regarding disease misclassification (i.e. classification errors of the disease status) and its impact on the study results are legitimate. Validation is therefore increasingly recognized as an essential component of database research. In this work, we elucidate the interrelations between the true prevalence of a disease in a database population (i.e. prevalence assuming no disease misclassification), the observed prevalence subject to disease misclassification, and the most common validity indices: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value. Based on this, we obtained analytical expressions to derive all the validity indices and true prevalence from the observed prevalence and any combination of two other parameters. The analytical expressions can be used for various purposes. Most notably, they can be used to obtain an estimate of the observed prevalence adjusted for outcome misclassification from any combination of two validity indices and to derive validity indices from each other which would otherwise be difficult to obtain. To allow researchers to easily use the analytical expressions, we additionally developed a user-friendly and freely available web-application.

Objectives This systematic review aims to provide further insights into the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation over time. We focus on assessing the reporting of information necessary to enable external validation by other investigators. Materials and Methods We searched Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify studies that developed 1 or more multivariable prognostic prediction models using electronic health record (EHR) data published in the period 2009–2019. Results We identified 422 studies that developed a total of 579 clinical prediction models using EHR data. We observed a steep increase over the years in the number of developed models. The percentage of models externally validated in the same paper remained at around 10%. Throughout 2009–2019, for both the target population and the outcome definitions, code lists were provided for less than 20% of the models. For about half of the models that were developed using regression analysis, the final model was not completely presented. Discussion Overall, we observed limited improvement over time in the conduct and reporting of clinical prediction model development and validation. In particular, the prediction problem definition was often not clearly reported, and the final model was often not completely presented. Conclusion Improvement in the reporting of information necessary to enable external validation by other investigators is still urgently needed to increase clinical adoption of developed models.