SynthesisChest2019
Comparison of All-Cause Mortality Following VTE Treatment Between Propensity Score-Adjusted Observational Studies and Matched Randomized Controlled Trials: Meta-Epidemiologic Study.
Synthesis in Chest, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs. Vitamin-K Antagonists in the Elderly With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review Comparing Benefits and Harms Between Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Design, implementation, and inferential issues associated with clinical trials that rely on data in electronic medical records: a narrative review.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Review
- Comparison of effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin-k antagonists in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis protocol.Annals of translational medicine · 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
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is unknown whether propensity score-adjusted observational studies produce results comparable to those of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that address similar VTE treatment issues.
methodsThe PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for propensity score-adjusted observational studies, RCTs, and meta-analyses of RCTs that estimated all-cause mortality following VTE treatment. After identifying distinct clinical treatment issues evaluated in the eligible observational studies, a standardized algorithm was used to identify and match at least one RCT or RCT meta-analysis publication for paired study design analyses. Meta-analyses were used to summarize groups of studies. Treatment efficacy statistics (relative ORs) were compared between the paired observational and RCT studies, and the summary relative ORs for all study design pairs were also calculated.
resultsThe observational and RCT study pairs assessed seven clinical treatment issues. Overall, the observational study-RCT pairs did not exhibit significantly different mortality estimates (summary relative OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.32-1.46; I
conclusionsThis systematic comparison across seven VTE treatment topics suggests that propensity score-adjusted observational studies and RCTs often exhibit similar all-cause mortality, although differences in the direction or the magnitude of estimated treatment effects may occasionally occur. TRIAL REGISTRY: PROSPERO; CRD42018087819; URL: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.
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.