ArticleScientific reports2022
Three-step matching algorithm to enhance between-group comparability and minimize confounding in comparative effectiveness studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of work characteristics and health status between Korean and US hospital nurses.Nursing open · 2024Article
- Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Schizophrenic Patients Treated with Paliperidone Palmitate Once-Monthly Injection (PP1M): A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study in Taiwan.Clinical drug investigation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We developed a three-step matching algorithm to enhance the between-group comparability for comparative drug effect studies involving prevalent new-users of the newer study drug versus older comparator drug(s). The three-step matching scheme is to match on: (1) index date of initiating the newer study drug to align the cohort entry time between study groups, (2) medication possession ratio measures that consider prior exposure to all older comparator drugs, and (3) propensity scores estimated from potential confounders. Our approach is illustrated with a comparative cardiovascular safety study of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1ra) versus sulfonylurea (SU) in type 2 diabetes patients using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database 2003-2015. 66% of 3195 GLP-1ra users had previously exposed to SU. The between-group comparability was well-achieved after implementing the matching algorithm (i.e., standardized mean difference < 0.2 for all baseline patient characteristics). Compared to SU, the use of GLP-1ra yielded a significantly reduced risk of the primary composite cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.71 [0.54-0.95], p = 0.022). Our matching scheme can enhance the between-group comparability in prevalent new-user cohort designs to minimize time-related bias, improve confounder adjustment, and ensure the reliability and validity of study findings.
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.