{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigqgitkb6pu4igoqdjcun5qlcg3eezuwtjne7ps5idfiknnvo4oge",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mfkzjjdmskk2"
  },
  "path": "/t/generalizability-vs-transportability-in-trials/28551?page=3#post_43",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-23T18:21:51.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "tags": [
    "part 1",
    "part 2",
    "part 3",
    "here",
    "KEYNOTE-564 RCT"
  ],
  "textContent": "ESMD:\n\n> PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT THE NEED FOR “GENERALISABILITY” OF RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIAL RESULTS ARE HUMBUG\n\nInteresting. Hard to say if he fully understood the role of randomization in RCTs (see recent related three part series on why the EBM movement missed this from its inception: part 1, part 2, part 3) but I would bet he did not. The clinical scenarios here include examples of patients that would have been _eligible_ for the KEYNOTE-564 RCT (>100 events) and would not benefit from the therapy it tested versus placebo, as well as examples that would have been _ineligible_ for the KEYNOTE-564 RCT and would benefit from the therapy it tested versus placebo.",
  "title": "Generalizability vs. Transportability in Trials"
}