Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25766096›Full record

ArticleInjury2015

Collider bias in trauma comparative effectiveness research: the stratification blues for systematic reviews.

Deborah J Del Junco, Eileen M Bulger, Erin E Fox, John B Holcomb, Karen J Brasel, David B Hoyt, James J Grady, Sarah Duran, Patricia Klotz, Michael A Dubick and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Injury, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Causal inference methods for systematic reviews.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Deborah J Del JuncoUniversity of Texas Health Science Center, Department of Surgery, Houston, TX, United States. Electronic address: deborah.j.deljunco@uth.tmc.edu.
Eileen M BulgerUniversity of Washington, Department of Surgery, Seattle, WA, United States.
Erin E FoxUniversity of Texas Health Science Center, Department of Surgery, Houston, TX, United States.
John B HolcombUniversity of Texas Health Science Center, Department of Surgery, Houston, TX, United States.
Karen J BraselOregon Health & Science University, Department of Surgery, Portland, OR, United States.
David B HoytAmerican College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL, United States.
James J GradyUniversity of Connecticut Health Center, Institute for Clinical and Translational Science, Farmington, CT, United States.
Sarah DuranUniversity of Texas Health Science Center, Department of Surgery, Houston, TX, United States.
Patricia KlotzUniversity of Washington, Department of Surgery, Seattle, WA, United States.
Michael A DubickU.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, San Antonio, TX, United States.
Charles E WadeUniversity of Texas Health Science Center, Department of Surgery, Houston, TX, United States.
ROC Investigators
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USUniversity of Washington · USAmerican College of Surgeons · USUnited States Army Institute of Surgical Research · US

Funding

Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Data Coordinating CenterU01HL077863 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MAY, SUSANNE · 2004 to 2015
$125.1M
Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchNHLBI NIH HHS 5U01 HL077863NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL077863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCollider bias, or stratifying data by a covariate consequence rather than cause (confounder) of treatment and outcome, plagues randomised and observational trauma research. Of the seven trials of prehospital hypertonic saline in dextran (HSD) that have been evaluated in systematic reviews, none found an overall between-group difference in survival, but four reported significant subgroup effects. We hypothesised that an avoidable type of collider bias often introduced inadvertently into trauma comparative effectiveness research could explain the incongruous findings.

methodsThe two most recent HSD trials, a single-site pilot and a multi-site pivotal study, provided data for a secondary analysis to more closely examine the potential for collider bias. The two trials had followed the a priori statistical analysis plan to subgroup patients by a post-randomisation covariate and well-established surrogate for bleeding severity, massive transfusion (MT), ≥ 10 unit of red blood cells within 24h of admission. Despite favourable HSD effects in the MT subgroup, opposite effects in the non-transfused subgroup halted the pivotal trial early. In addition to analyzing the data from the two trials, we constructed causal diagrams and performed a meta-analysis of the results from all seven trials to assess the extent to which collider bias could explain null overall effects with subgroup heterogeneity.

resultsAs in previous trials, HSD induced significantly greater increases in systolic blood pressure (SBP) from prehospital to admission than control crystalloid (p=0.003). Proportionately more HSD than control decedents accrued in the non-transfused subgroup, but with paradoxically longer survival. Despite different study populations and a span of over 20 years across the seven trials, the reported mortality effects were consistently null, summary RR=0.99 (p=0.864, homogeneity p=0.709).

conclusionsHSD delayed blood transfusion by modifying standard triggers like SBP with no detectable effect on survival. The reported heterogeneous HSD effects in subgroups can be explained by collider bias that trauma researchers can avoid by improved covariate selection and data capture strategies.

Indexed as

Comparative Effectiveness ResearchBiasBlood TransfusionHumansObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReview Literature as TopicSurvival AnalysisTrauma CentersWounds and InjuriesBiasComparative effectiveness researchMassive transfusionObservationalRandomised clinical trialResuscitationSubgroupSurvivalTrauma

Identifiers

PMID25766096
PMCPMC4402274
OpenAlexW2138301882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.