CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 474Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement

Open access
Kent, David M., Paulus, Jessica K., van Klaveren, David, D'Agostino, Ralph, Goodman, Steve, Hayward, Rodney, Ioannidis, John P.A., Patrick-Lake, Bray, Morton, Sally, Pencina, Michael, Raman, Gowri, Ross, Joseph S., Selker, Harry P., Varadhan, Ravi, Vickers, Andrew, Wong, John B., Steyerberg, Ewout W.·2020·Annals of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.7326/m18-3667PMC PMC7531587
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) refers to the nonrandom variation in the magnitude or direction of a treatment effect across levels of a covariate, as measured on a selected scale, against a clinical outcome. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), HTE is typically examined through a subgroup analysis that contrasts effects in groups of patients defined "1 variable at a time" (for example, male vs. female or old vs. young). The authors of this statement present guidance on an alternative approach to HTE analysis, "predictive HTE analysis." The goal of predictive HTE analysis is to provide patient-centered estimates of outcome risks with versus without the intervention, taking into account all relevant patient attributes simultaneously. The PATH (Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity) Statement was developed using a multidisciplinary technical expert panel, targeted literature reviews, simulations to characterize potential problems with predictive approaches, and a deliberative process engaging the expert panel. The authors distinguish 2 categories of predictive HTE approaches: a "risk-modeling" approach, wherein a multivariable model predicts the risk for an outcome and is applied to disaggregate patients within RCTs to define risk-based variation in benefit, and an "effect-modeling" approach, wherein a model is developed on RCT data by incorporating a term for treatment assignment and interactions between treatment and baseline covariates. Both approaches can be used to predict differential absolute treatment effects, the most relevant scale for clinical decision making. The authors developed 4 sets of guidance: criteria to determine when risk-modeling approaches are likely to identify clinically important HTE, methodological aspects of risk-modeling methods, considerations for translation to clinical practice, and considerations and caveats in the use of effect-modeling approaches. The PATH Statement, together with its explanation and elaboration document, may guide future analyses and reporting of RCTs.

Overview

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 · 10.7326/m18-3667

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 83 references

4 of the 83 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Furberg CD, 1983, Circulation, 67, I98

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–474 of 474

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kent, D. M., Paulus, J. K., van Klaveren, D., D'Agostino, R., Goodman, S., Hayward, R., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Patrick-Lake, B., Morton, S., Pencina, M., Raman, G., Ross, J. S., Selker, H. P., Varadhan, R., Vickers, A., Wong, J. B., & Steyerberg, E. W.
Affiliations
  • Tufts Medical Center (US)
  • Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness (PACE) Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts (D.V.)
  • Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts (R.D.)
  • Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California (S.G., J.P.I.)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (B.P., M.P.)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Published
2020-01-07
Volume
172
Issue
1
Pages
35-45
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
DOI
10.7326/m18-3667
PMC
PMC7531587
OpenAlex
W2984947744
Cited by
469
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 101 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 21
FWCI
26.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim/text-and-data-mining (tdm)
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (RR-1705-0001)
  • National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
treatment effect heterogeneity, risk modeling, subgroup analysis, treatment effect modification, reporting guidelines, randomized controlled trials, clinical decision-making
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Clinical Decision Rules, Humans, Individuality, Models, Statistical, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Evidence-Based Medicine

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