Cited by 137Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Translating evidence into practice: eligibility criteria fail to eliminate clinically significant differences between real-world and study populations

Open access
Averitt, Amelia J., Weng, Chunhua, Ryan, Patrick, Perotte, Adler·2020·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the most reputable source of evidence. In some studies, factors beyond the intervention itself may contribute to the measured effect, an occurrence known as heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE). If the RCT population differs from the real-world population on factors that induce HTE, the trials effect will not replicate. The RCTs eligibility criteria should identify the sub-population in which its evidence will replicate. However, the extent to which the eligibility criteria identify the appropriate population is unknown, which raises concerns for generalizability. We compared reported data from RCTs with real-world data from the electronic health records of a large, academic medical center that was curated according to RCT eligibility criteria. Our results show fundamental differences between the RCT population and our observational cohorts, which suggests that eligibility criteria may be insufficient for identifying the applicable real-world population in which RCT evidence will replicate.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-020-0277-8

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Randomized controlled trials for this topic have ethical quandaries and external validity issues because participants must relinquish autonomy of a reproductive organ to randomization, which limits their utility and appropriateness.

    “Though randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exist, 19,25 ethical quandaries and external validity issues given that participants must relinquish autonomy of a reproductive organ to randomization places limits on utility and appropriateness of RCT evidence for this topic.31,32”

    From Hysterectomy versus uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a prospective cohort study (2025) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Introduction (page not provided) says restrictive RCT eligibility criteria can limit external validity and make it unclear whether trial evidence is appropriate for a different real-world population. The paper does not address reproductive-organ autonomy or ethical concerns about randomization, and it does not assess RCTs for the citing document’s specific topic. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [3]Djulbegovic, B. & Guyatt G. in Users Guide to Medical Literature. 3rd edn. (McGraw-Hill Education, 1976).
  2. [16]Velasco, E. in Encyclopedia of Research Design (ed. Salkind, N) (SAGE, Thousand Oaks Publications, 2010).
  3. [20]Karanis, Y. B., Canta, F. A. B., Mitrofan, L., Mistry, H. & Anger, C. ‘Research’ vs ‘real world’ patients: the representativeness of clinical trial participants. Ann. Oncol. (2016) 10.1093/annonc/mdw392.51/2800468/Research-vs-real-world-patients-the · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Averitt, A. J., Weng, C., Ryan, P., & Perotte, A.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Perotte, Adler
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2020-05-11
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
67-67
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3021472140
Cited by
137
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 4
FWCI
13.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM009886-10, T15LM007079)
  • Janssen Pharmaceuticals (CU15-2317)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
eligibility criteria, treatment effect heterogeneity, generalizability, real-world data, electronic health records, randomized controlled trials, observational cohort, evidence-to-practice translation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review