New-user designs with conditional propensity scores: a unified complement to the traditional active comparator new-user approach.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Effectiveness of Indapamide Prolonged-Release and Perindopril Versus Perindopril Monotherapy for Treated Uncontrolled Hypertension: A Target Trial Emulation.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026
   Observational
2. Real-world complexity of atrial fibrillation treatment with oral anticoagulants: design and interpretation of pharmacoepidemiological studies.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017
   Article
3. Long-Term Safety Evaluations in the Presence of Switching: Evaluation of Two Approaches.Pharmaceutical statistics
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Prevalent new-user cohort designs for comparative drug effect studies by time-conditional propensity scores.2017

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as