ArticleLearning health systems2019
Advantages of large medical record database for outcomes research: Insights into post-menopausal hormone therapy.
Article in Learning health systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- On the Causal Interpretation of Rate-Change Methods: The Prior Event Rate Ratio and Rate Difference.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Advantages of large medical record database for outcomes research: Insights into post-menopausal hormone therapy.Learning health systems · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Approximately 25 years ago, our team initiated studies to determine whether outcome results from a large medical record database would yield valid results. We utilized the data in the United Kingdom (UK) General Practice Research Database (GPRD) to replicate the randomized controlled trial (RCT) study result and compared them to confirm the database results. The initial studies compared favorably, but some subsequent studies did not. This prompted development of a new strategy to determine and correct for unrecognized confounding in the database. This strategy divided outcome rates prior to initiation of therapy in the database study (which should include both identified and unidentified confounders) into the outcome rates during the treatment interval. When they differed from Cox-adjusted results, it reflected unrecognized confounding. We called this strategy Prior Event Rate Ratio (PERR)-adjusted outcome. One of our previously published observational studies replicated the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) RCT study of hormone therapy in post-menopausal women. Our study results replicated the WHI RCT results except it did not exhibit an increase in heart attack in contrast to the RCT. Furthermore, we could not evaluate death reliably since our analytic approach to overcome unrecognized confounding does not work for this outcome. In Volume 1, Issue 1 of the
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.