Residual confounding in observational studies: new data from the old DIG trial.

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. Confused with confounders? Understanding the role of directed acyclic graphs in observational research.Critical care (London, England) · 2025
   Article
2. Type 1 diabetes, glycemic traits, and risk of dental caries: a Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in genetics · 2023
   Article
3. Progress in heart failure management in the Netherlands and beyond: long-term commitment to deliver high-quality research and patient care.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2020
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Digoxin-mortality: randomized vs. observational comparison in the DIG trial.2019

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as