ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2015
Observational and clinical trial findings on the comparative effectiveness of diabetes drugs showed agreement.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rivaroxaban was found to be noninferior to warfarin in routine clinical care: A retrospective noninferiority cohort replication study.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study compares an observational study of diabetes treatment effectiveness to randomized controlled trials to assess their convergent validity. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingMultivariate models were developed using observational data to describe change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c; % unit) and weight (kilograms) after addition of a second-line oral diabetes drug to metformin monotherapy. Randomized trials of these scenarios were systematically identified. The models were used to simulate each trial, and simulated and actual results were compared by linear regression and meta-analysis.
resultsThirty-two randomized trials of second-line diabetes oral therapy were identified. For all outcomes and drugs studied, simulation and actual results correlated (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between meta-analyzed randomized and simulated results for effect on HbA1c. For effect on weight, results were qualitatively comparable, but for sulfonylureas, the simulated weight gain was nominally greater than seen in the randomized controlled trials.
conclusionAn observational study of diabetes drug effectiveness showed convergent validity with randomized data. This supports cautious use of the observational research to draw conclusions about drug effectiveness in populations not studied in clinical trials. This approach may be useful in other situations where observational and randomized data need integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.