Skip to main content

The Population Representativeness of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Evidence Studies for Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease in the United States

Journal
Journal of evidence-based medicine (Q1)
Published
15 September 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
Zhuotong Wu, Yiling Zhou, Lin Li, Yinuo Liu, Yuqi Liao, Keer Chen, et al.
PMID
42741814
DOI
10.1111/jebm.70194

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Nephrology (top studies of the week, 20 September 2026): Population representativeness of RCTs and RWE in US ESKD patients

Abstract

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.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.