ArticleCancer investigation2021
Impervious to Randomness: Confounding and Selection Biases in Randomized Clinical Trials.
Article in Cancer investigation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D as an Immuno-Endocrine Modulator: Discovering Its Role in Autoimmune Disorders and Host Defense Mechanisms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Let It Breathe: Mastering Spontaneous Breathing Trials.Respiratory care · 2024Article
- Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials.Cancers · 2023Review
- Obesity and renal cell carcinoma: Biological mechanisms and perspectives.Seminars in cancer biology · 2023Review
- Less is More? First Impressions From COSMIC-313.Cancer investigation · 2023Article
- Review
- The Big Data Paradox in Clinical Practice.Cancer investigation · 2022Article
- Fooled by Randomness. The Misleading Effect of Treatment Crossover in Randomized Trials of Therapies with Marginal Treatment Benefit.Cancer investigation · 2022Article
- Missing the trees for the forest: most subgroup analyses using forest plots at the ASCO annual meeting are inconclusive.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2022Article
- Causal Considerations Can Inform the Interpretation of Surprising Associations in Medical Registries.Cancer investigation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The random allocation of therapies in randomized clinical trials is a powerful tool that removes all confounding biases that can affect treatment assignment. However, confounders influencing mediators of the treatment effect are unaffected by randomization and should be considered during trial design and statistical modeling.Examples of such mediators include biomarkers predictive of response to targeted therapies in oncology. Patient selection for such biomarkers is prudent in clinical trials. Conversely, prognostic information on outcome heterogeneity can be derived from observational datasets that include more representative populations. The fusion of experimental and observational data can then allow patient-specific inferences.
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.