How to Measure the Generalizability of Clinical Trials

Main Article Content

Yuanyuan Lu Henian Chen Wei Wang Yangxin Huang Matthew J. Valente

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials are widely regarded as the gold standard in clinical research and public health. However, they have been criticized for potentially lacking generalizability, as trial participants may not fully represent the target patient population due to the inability to obtain a truly random sample for enrollment. Assessing and evaluating the generalizability of randomized controlled trials is an important issue that has not been addressed adequately in literature. Additionally, although the importance of describing clinical trial generalizability is recognized by clinical trial reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT), it provides no clear guidance on statistical tests or estimation procedures. In this paper, we compare five generalizability indexes, including Standardized Mean Difference, C-Statistic, β-Index, Kolmogorov-Smirnov Distance, and Lévy Distance. We simulate a patient population with a treatment effect size of 0.5 (Cohen's d ) and seven covariates that include gender, health insurance, race, baseline symptoms, comorbidity, age, and motivation. We then evaluate the performance of the five generalizability indexes using selected nonrandom and random clinical trial samples under different number of covariates and sample sizes. Our work supports the use of -index and C-statistic due to their strong statistical performance, ease of interpretation and ability to clearly categorize generalizability into levels such as very high, high, medium or low. A -index value between 1 and 0.8 (inclusive) or a C-statistic value between 0.5 and 0.8 (inclusive) indicates that the trail sample is very highly or highly representative of the patient population.

Keywords: clinical trial, generalizability, measurement, effect size, bias, simulation

Article Details

How to Cite
LU, Yuanyuan et al. How to Measure the Generalizability of Clinical Trials. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 13, n. 9, sep. 2025. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/6896>. Date accessed: 07 dec. 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i9.6896.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Stuart EA, Cole SR, Bradshaw CP, Leaf PJ. The use of propensity scores to assess the generalizability of results from randomized trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). 2011;174(2):369-386.
2. Greenhouse JB, Kaizar EE, Kelleher K, Seltman H, Gardner W. Generalizing from clinical trial data: a case study. The risk of suicidality among pediatric antidepressant users. Statistics in Medicine. 2008;27(11):1801-1813.
3. Wang W, Ma Y, Huang Y, Chen H. Generalizability analysis for clinical trials: a simulation study. Statistics in Medicine. 2017;36(10):1523-1531.
4. Weng C, Li Y, Ryan P, et al. A distribution-based method for assessing the differences between clinical trial target populations and patient populations in electronic health records. Applied Clinical Informatics. 2014;5(2):463.
5. Dekkers O, Elm Ev, Algra A, Romijn J, Vandenbroucke J. How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2010;39(1):89-94.
6. Cahan A, Cahan S, Cimino JJ. Computer-aided assessment of the generalizability of clinical trial results. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2017;99:60-66.
7. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials:“to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. The Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82-93.
8. Savoca MR, Ludwig DA, Jones ST, et al. Geographic information systems to assess external validity in randomized trials. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2017;53(2):252-259.
9. Teare MD, Dimairo M, Shephard N, Hayman A, Whitehead A, Walters SJ. Sample size requirements to estimate key design parameters from external pilot randomised controlled trials: a simulation study. Trials. 2014;15(1):1-13.
10. Clark T, Berger U, Mansmann U. Sample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees. BMJ. 2013;346.
11. Heiat A, Gross CP, Krumholz HM. Representation of the elderly, women, and minorities in heart failure clinical trials. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2002;162(15).
12. Elting LS, Cooksley C, Bekele BN, et al. Generalizability of cancer clinical trial results: prognostic differences between participants and nonparticipants. Cancer. 2006;106(11):2452-2458.
13. Le Strat Y, Rehm J, Le Foll B. How generalisable to community samples are clinical trial results for treatment of nicotine dependence: a comparison of common eligibility criteria with respondents of a large representative general population survey. Tobacco Control. 2011;20(5):338-343.
14. Saunders C, Byrne CD, Guthrie B, et al. External validity of randomized controlled trials of glycaemic control and vascular disease: how representative are participants? Diabetic Medicine. 2013;30(3):300-308.
15. Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA, 2007;297(11):1233-1240.
16. Liberopoulos G, Trikalinos NA, Ioannidis JP. The elderly were under-represented in osteoarthritis clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(11):1218-1223.
17. Hutchins LF, Unger JM, Crowley JJ, Coltman Jr CA, Albain KS. Underrepresentation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials. New England Journal of Medicine. 1999;341(27):2061-2067.
18. Rehman H. Under-representation of the elderly in clinical trials. European Journal of Internal Medicine. 2005;16(6):385-386.
19. Lee PY, Alexander KP, Hammill BG, Pasquali SK, Peterson ED. Representation of elderly persons and women in published randomized trials of acute coronary syndromes. JAMA< 2001;286(6):708-713.
20. Murthy VH, Krumholz HM, Gross CP. Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA, 2004;291(22):2720-2726.
21. Swanson GM, Bailar III JC. Selection and description of cancer clinical trials participants—science or happenstance? Cancer. 2002;95(5):950-959.
22. Varma T, Mello M, Ross JS, Gross C, Miller J. Metrics, baseline scores, and a tool to improve sponsor performance on clinical trial diversity: retrospective cross sectional study. BMJ Medicine. 2023;2(1).
23. Al-Refaie WB, Vickers SM, Zhong W, Parsons H, Rothenberger D, Habermann EB. Cancer trials versus the real world in the United States. Annals of Surgery. 2011;254(3):438-443.
24. Sateren WB, Trimble EL, Abrams J, et al. How sociodemographics, presence of oncology specialists, and hospital cancer programs affect accrual to cancer treatment trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2002;20(8):2109-2117.
25. U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Enhancing the diversity of clinical trial populations eligibility criteria, enrollment practices, and trial designs guidance for industry. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/enhancing-diversity-clinical-trial-populations-eligibility-criteria-enrollment-practices-and-trial.
26. Editors. Striving for diversity in research studies. In. Vol 385: Mass Medical Soc; 2021:1429-1430.
27. Kozlov M. FDA to require diversity plan for clinical trials. Nature. 2023. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00469-4.
28. Hopewell S, Chan A, Collins G, et al. CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. BMJ 2025;389:e081124. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2024-081124.
29. Tipton E. How generalizable is your experiment? An index for comparing experimental samples and populations. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2014;39(6):478-501.
30. Belitser SV, Martens EP, Pestman WR, Groenwold RH, De Boer A, Klungel OH. Measuring balance and model selection in propensity score methods. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 2011;20(11):1115-1129.
31. Franklin JM, Rassen JA, Ackermann D, Bartels DB, Schneeweiss S. Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects. Statistics in Medicine. 2014;33(10):1685-1699.
32. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41-55.
33. Kaizar E, Lin C, Faries D, Johnston J. Reweighting estimators to extend the external validity of clinical trials: methodological considerations. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics. 2023;33(5):515-543. doi: 10.1080/10543406.2022.2162067
34. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons. New York. 2000.