ArticleRheumatology international2024
A practical guide to estimating treatment effects in patients with rheumatic diseases using real-world data.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subclinical Changes in Cardiovascular Function During the Neonatal Period in Infants Born to Mothers With Diabetes.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2026Article
- Elevated Blood Pressure in Newborns From Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy During the Immediate Postnatal Period.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2026Article
- Postinduction Hypotension and Adverse Outcomes in Older Adults Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRandomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in study methodology. However, due to their study design and inclusion criteria, these studies may not capture the heterogeneity of real-world patient populations. In contrast, the lack of randomization and the presence of both measured and unmeasured confounding factors could bias the estimated treatment effect when using observational data. While causal inference methods allow for the estimation of treatment effects, their mathematical complexity may hinder their application in clinical research.
methodsWe present a practical, nontechnical guide using a common statistical package (Stata) and a motivational simulated dataset that mirrors real-world observational data from patients with rheumatic diseases. We demonstrate regression analysis, regression adjustment, inverse-probability weighting, propensity score (PS) matching and two robust estimation methods.
resultsAlthough the methods applied to control for confounding factors produced similar results, the commonly used one-to-one PS matching method could yield biased results if not thoroughly assessed.
conclusionThe guide we propose aims to facilitate the use of readily available methods in a common statistical package. It may contribute to robust and transparent epidemiological and statistical methods, thereby enhancing effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology.
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.