Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24696151›Full record

ArticleCommunity mental health journal2014

Evaluation of different approaches for confounding in nonrandomised observational data: a case-study of antipsychotics treatment.

E Sarlon, A Millier, S Aballéa, M Toumi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Community mental health journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

E SarlonINSERM, U669, National Institute of Health and Medical Research, Paris, France, emmanuelle.sarlon@gmail.com.
A Millier
S Aballéa
M Toumi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although randomised controlled trials are regarded as the gold standard for treatments efficacy, evidence from observational studies remains relevant. To address the problem of possible confounding in these studies, investigators must employ analysis methods that adjust for confounders and lead to an unbiased estimation of the treatment effect. In this paper, the authors describe two relevant statistical methods. The first method represents the classical approach consisting of a multiple regression model including the effects of treatment and covariates. This approach considers the relation between prognostic factors and the outcome variable as a relevant criterion for adjustment. The second method is based on the propensity score, and focuses on the relation between prognostic factors and treatment assignment. These approaches were applied to a cohort of 183 French schizophrenic patients who were followed for a 2-year period (from 1998 to 2000). The probability of relapse according to antipsychotic treatment exposure was modelled using Cox regression models with the two statistical methods. Goodness-of-fit criteria were used to compare the modelling approaches. This study demonstrates that the propensity score, a predicted probability, has an important balancing property that underscores its value in strengthening the results of nonrandomised observational studies.

Indexed as

Confounding Factors, EpidemiologicAdultAntipsychotic AgentsData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleObservational Studies as TopicPrognosisPropensity ScoreProportional Hazards ModelsRecurrenceSchizophreniaTreatment OutcomeAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.