Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2026
The Population Representativeness of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Evidence Studies for Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease in the United States.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Zhuotong, Zhou Yiling, Li Lin, Liu Yinuo, Liao Yuqi, Chen Keer, Jia Huichang, Wu Meng, Deng Jumin, Liao Binchi, Xie Zhangshu, Li Sheyu, Wu Ying
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the population representativeness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) relative to the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) target population. The primary aim was to evaluate the generalizability of US-based evidence, and the secondary aim to examine the transportability of non-US evidence to the US dialysis population.
METHODS: We searched PubMed for RCTs and RWE studies in ESKD dialysis populations (2007-2024). Random-effects models were used to pool effect modifiers and mortality rates separately for US-based and non-US RCTs and RWE studies. The primary outcome was a composite representativeness measure, defined as no meaningful deviation across all effect modifiers and mortality rate relative to USRDS benchmarks. Secondary outcomes were single-component representativeness measures for age, diabetes prevalence, and mortality rate. Meaningful deviation was defined as absolute standardized mean difference (SMD) >0.25. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: We included 194 RCTs (n = 71,119) and 173 RWE studies (n = 50,931,214). For the primary aim, neither US-based RCT samples nor US-based RWE samples were representative. RCT participants were younger (SMD = -0.27) and had lower mortality rates (SMD = -1.52) than the USRDS population, whereas RWE samples showed no meaningful deviations in age, diabetes prevalence, or mortality rate (SMDs = 0.00, -0.11, and 0.08). Meaningful deviations in other effect modifiers remained in both study types. Non-US samples also showed limited representativeness.
CONCLUSIONS: RCTs and RWE studies demonstrate limited representativeness, underscoring the need to validate and adapt evidence before clinical application.
METHODS: We searched PubMed for RCTs and RWE studies in ESKD dialysis populations (2007-2024). Random-effects models were used to pool effect modifiers and mortality rates separately for US-based and non-US RCTs and RWE studies. The primary outcome was a composite representativeness measure, defined as no meaningful deviation across all effect modifiers and mortality rate relative to USRDS benchmarks. Secondary outcomes were single-component representativeness measures for age, diabetes prevalence, and mortality rate. Meaningful deviation was defined as absolute standardized mean difference (SMD) >0.25. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: We included 194 RCTs (n = 71,119) and 173 RWE studies (n = 50,931,214). For the primary aim, neither US-based RCT samples nor US-based RWE samples were representative. RCT participants were younger (SMD = -0.27) and had lower mortality rates (SMD = -1.52) than the USRDS population, whereas RWE samples showed no meaningful deviations in age, diabetes prevalence, or mortality rate (SMDs = 0.00, -0.11, and 0.08). Meaningful deviations in other effect modifiers remained in both study types. Non-US samples also showed limited representativeness.
CONCLUSIONS: RCTs and RWE studies demonstrate limited representativeness, underscoring the need to validate and adapt evidence before clinical application.