Peter Hall

@peterhall001.bsky.social

Breast Oncologist and Professor of Cancer Informatics, Edinburgh | Health Economics | Real World Evidence | https://cancer-data.ecrc.ed.ac.uk/

Target trial emulation is an important, useful idea, but we must remain careful to not allow novices to think it's a magical shortcut to causal inference. Nor can we lose sight of the *main* thing that separates randomized from non-randomized studies.

POTENTIAL RISKS OF TARGET TRIAL
TERMINOLOGY
There are risks that the term target trial emulation (TTE)
might mislead readers without methodological training. We
believe some readers may assume TTE represents a distinct
form of observational study design, rather than a framework
to help researchers identify and avoid self-inflicted errors in
observational studies. We are particularly concerned that
claims to have emulated an RCT will be mistaken for a claim
to have successfully emulated an RCT. The latter statement
implies that the inference is of a comparable standard to a
well-conducted RCT. To be certain, the TTE framework (2),
used correctly, will help investigators specify estimands,
and sidestep avoidable selection bias, but we are probably
more pessimistic than Schwarze et al. (1) about the ability
of ‘‘advanced methods’’ to address the threat of other
sources of bias. However, the difference in how
randomization accounts for confounding vs. ‘‘advanced
methods’’ like covariate adjustment, weighting, etc. is a
difference in kind, not in degree. This is because
randomization is guaranteed to eliminate confounding for
some key estimands, and to do so in a manner that
predominantly rests on our trust in a potentially verifiable
randomization process. In contrast, acting on the effect
estimate returned from an NRSI requires us to trust in the decisions and competence of the investigator, and even then,
no guarantee is possible, even in relatively simple sets of
relationships among a small set of potential covariates.
This distinction will be obvious to methodological experts,
but they only constitute a small proportion of researchers
and research-consumers

Together with the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research), the EPSRC, Health Data Research UK (HDR UK) and ADR UK (Administrative Data Research UK), we’re announcing a £10m programme which will help identify individual cancer risk 🙌 Read more 👉 cruk.ink/42q0aaY

£10m funding for new programme to help identify individual cancer risk - Cancer Research UK - Cancer News

Today, Cancer Research UK, the NIHR and the EPSRC are announcing £10 million to create the Cancer Data-Driven Detection programme

cruk.ink

Are you a health economist, epidemiologist or data scientist with experience using routine healthcare data? Interested in equity in cancer care? Come and join this exciting @nihr.bsky.social funded project! Work with a range of stakeholders and build your skills. jobs.leeds.ac.uk/Vacancy.aspx...

Job Opportunity at University of Leeds: Research Fellow

Are you an ambitious researcher looking for your next challenge? Do you have a background in economics, econometrics, statistics, epidemiology or health data science? Are you interested in working wit...

jobs.leeds.ac.uk

🧵 New research published today by the OECD: 💷 #Cancer adds £14.4bn to annual UK #health expenditure - even accounting for other health costs those who don't get cancer go on to require 📈Without action, per capita costs could increase by >50% by 2050 1/ news.cancerresearchuk.org/2024/11/21/t...

The cost of cancer: what does it mean for the UK’s growth mission - Cancer Research UK - Cancer News

The OECD's report on the economic impact of cancer makes it clear the UK government needs to focus on tackling the disease.

news.cancerresearchuk.org