ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2017
Comparison between treatment effects in a randomised controlled trial and an observational study using propensity scores in primary care.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- The premature closure of ROMPA clinical trial: mortality reduction in septic shock by plasma adsorption.BMJ open · 2019Trial
- Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters in Children Across Pandemic and Endemic Periods.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Early intravenous immunoglobulin use improves live birth outcomes in women with recurrent pregnancy loss: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Cardiac Biomarkers Predict Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) in Incident Haemodialysis Patients: Results from a Global Federated Database.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Routine cardiac biomarkers for the prediction of incident major adverse cardiac events in patients with glomerulonephritis: a real-world analysis using a global federated database.BMC nephrology · 2024Article
- Postoperative recreational sports and subjective shoulder function: a comprehensive analysis following intramedullary stabilization of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of median sternotomy closure-related complication rates using orthopedic wire or suture in dogs: A multi-institutional observational treatment effect analysis.Veterinary surgery : VS · 2022Article
- Use of propensity score matching to create counterfactual group to assess potential HIV prevention interventions.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A narrative review of data collection and analysis guidelines for comparative effectiveness research in chronic pain using patient-reported outcomes and electronic health records.Journal of pain research · 2019Article
- Impact of antibiotics for children presenting to general practice with cough on adverse outcomes: secondary analysis from a multicentre prospective cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered 'gold standard' evidence, they are not always feasible or appropriate, and may represent a select population. Observational studies provide a useful alternative to enhance applicability, but results can be biased due to confounding.
aimTo explore the utility of propensity scores for causal inference in an observational study. DESIGN AND
settingComparison of the effect of amoxicillin on key outcomes in an international RCT and observational study of lower respiratory tract infections.
methodPropensity scores were calculated and applied as probability weights in the analyses. The adjusted results were compared with the effects reported in the RCT.
resultsGroups were well balanced in the RCT but significantly imbalanced in the observational study, with evidence of confounding by indication: patients receiving antibiotics tended to be older and more unwell at baseline consultation. In the trial duration of symptoms (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.18) and symptom severity (-0.07, 95% CI = -0.15 to 0.007) did not differ between groups. Weighting by propensity score in the observational study resulted in very similar estimates of effect: duration of symptoms (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI = 0.80 to 1.40) and difference for symptom severity (-0.07, 95% CI = -0.34 to 0.20).
conclusionThe observational study, after conditioning on propensity score, echoed the trial results. Provided that detailed information is available on potential sources of confounding, effects of interventions can probably be assessed reasonably well in observational datasets, allowing them to be more directly compared with the results of RCTs.
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.