SynthesisEuropean journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery2023
Confounding adjustment in observational studies on cardiothoracic interventions: a systematic review of methodological practice.
Synthesis in European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIt is unknown which confounding adjustment methods are currently used in the field of cardiothoracic surgery and whether these are appropriately applied. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of conduct and reporting of confounding adjustment methods in observational studies on cardiothoracic interventions.
methodsA systematic review was performed, which included all observational studies that compared different interventions and were published between 1 January and 1 July 2022, in 3 European and American cardiothoracic surgery journals. Detailed information on confounding adjustment methods was extracted and subsequently described.
resultsNinety-two articles were included in the analysis. Outcome regression (n = 49, 53%) and propensity score (PS) matching (n = 44, 48%) were most popular (sometimes used in combination), whereas 11 (12%) studies applied no method at all. The way of selecting confounders was not reported in 42 (46%) of the studies, solely based on previous literature or clinical knowledge in 14 (16%), and (partly) data-driven in 25 (27%). For the studies that applied PS matching, the matched cohorts comprised on average 46% of the entire study population (range 9-82%).
conclusionsCurrent reporting of confounding adjustment methods is insufficient in a large part of observational studies on cardiothoracic interventions, which makes quality judgement difficult. Appropriate application of confounding adjustment methods is crucial for causal inference on optimal treatment strategies for clinical practice. Reporting on these methods is an important aspect of this, which can be improved.
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.