Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36310758›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2022

Death or survival, which you measure may affect conclusions: A methodological study.

Jake Shannin, Babette A Brumback

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jake ShanninDepartment of Statistics University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5473-7599
Babette A BrumbackDepartment of Biostatistics University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7464-4795

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Considering the opposite outcome-for example, survival instead of death-may affect conclusions about which subpopulation benefits more from a treatment or suffers more from an exposure. Methods: For case studies on death following COVID-19 and bankruptcy following melanoma, we compute and interpret the relative risk, odds ratio, and risk difference for different age groups. Since there is no established effect measure or outcome for either study, we redo these analyses for survival and solvency. Results: In a case study on COVID-19 that ignores confounding, the relative risk of death suggested that 40-49-year-old Mexicans with COVID-19 suffered more from their unprepared healthcare system, using Italy's system as a baseline, than their 60-69-year-old counterparts. The relative risk of survival and the risk difference suggested the opposite conclusion. A similar phenomenon occurred in a case study on bankruptcy following melanoma treatment. Conclusion: To increase transparency around this paradox, researchers reporting one outcome should note if considering the opposite outcome would yield different conclusions. When possible, researchers should also report or estimate underlying risks alongside effect measures.

Indexed as

effect‐measure modificationodds ratiorelative risksrisk differencevaccine efficacy

Identifiers

PMID36310758
PMCPMC9596942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.