↓ Skip to main content

Understanding Treatment Effect Estimates When Treatment Effects Are Heterogeneous for More Than One Outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Understanding Treatment Effect Estimates When Treatment Effects Are Heterogeneous for More Than One Outcome
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40258-018-0380-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

John M. Brooks, Cole G. Chapman, Mary C. Schroeder

Abstract

Patient-centred care requires evidence of treatment effects across many outcomes. Outcomes can be beneficial (e.g. increased survival or cure rates) or detrimental (e.g. adverse events, pain associated with treatment, treatment costs, time required for treatment). Treatment effects may also be heterogeneous across outcomes and across patients. Randomized controlled trials are usually insufficient to supply evidence across outcomes. Observational data analysis is an alternative, with the caveat that the treatments observed are choices. Real-world treatment choice often involves complex assessment of expected effects across the array of outcomes. Failure to account for this complexity when interpreting treatment effect estimates could lead to clinical and policy mistakes. Our objective was to assess the properties of treatment effect estimates based on choice when treatments have heterogeneous effects on both beneficial and detrimental outcomes across patients. Simulation methods were used to highlight the sensitivity of treatment effect estimates to the distributions of treatment effects across patients across outcomes. Scenarios with alternative correlations between benefit and detriment treatment effects across patients were used. Regression and instrumental variable estimators were applied to the simulated data for both outcomes. True treatment effect parameters are sensitive to the relationships of treatment effectiveness across outcomes in each study population. In each simulation scenario, treatment effect estimate interpretations for each outcome are aligned with results shown previously in single outcome models, but these estimates vary across simulated populations with the correlations of treatment effects across patients across outcomes. If estimator assumptions are valid, estimates across outcomes can be used to assess the optimality of treatment rates in a study population. However, because true treatment effect parameters are sensitive to correlations of treatment effects across outcomes, decision makers should be cautious about generalizing estimates to other populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Master 3 16%
Researcher 2 11%
Professor 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Computer Science 2 11%
Psychology 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,594,219
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#615
of 784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,372
of 330,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#20
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.