ArticleJournal of evidence-based medicine2022
A methodological framework for tackling confounding by indication when assessing the treatment effects of Chinese herbal injections in the real world.
Article in Journal of evidence-based medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A methodological framework for tackling confounding by indication when assessing the treatment effects of Chinese herbal injections in the real world.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimIn the context of integrative medicine, whether Chinese herbal injections are effective in routine practice has become a question of broad interest. However, confounding by indication (i.e., indication bias) is a prevalent and highly challenging methodological issue when using routinely collected health care data to assess the real-world effectiveness of Chinese herbal injections. METHODS AND
resultsWe proposed a methodological approach to tackling confounding by indication in assessing the real-world effectiveness of Chinese herbal injections, incorporating empirical experiences, a literature review and interactive discussions, and a panel of external experts to finally achieve a consensus. This approach consisted of three cohesive steps, including a full understanding of treatment patterns, construction of fair comparisons by identifying appropriate combination treatments and comparators, and using statistical methods to further control for confounding. In the investigation of treatment patterns, we proposed five domains to identify treatment patterns with Chinese herbal injections, and we offered five patterns of combination treatments to characterize how Chinese herbal injections are used in conjunction with other treatments. In constructing fair comparisons, we suggested the use of both nonuse and active comparators; given the diverse combination treatments, we developed six scenarios that may form fair comparisons. In the statistical analysis, we discussed five statistical models for controlling confounding by indication, including their pros and cons. We also included a practical example to illustrate the usefulness of the methodological approach.
conclusionThe proposed approach may serve as an effective tool to guide researchers to reliably assess the effectiveness of Chinese herbal injections in the context of integrative medicine.
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.