ArticlePloS one2024
Reverse causation bias: A simulation study comparing first- and second-line treatments with an overlap of symptoms between treatment indication and studied outcome.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
- Association between metabolic syndrome components and the risk of malignant neoplasms of the brain: a nationwide cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The impact of the three-level digital divide on the mental health of rural residents: A study from China.PloS one · 2026Article
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
backgroundReverse causation is a challenge in many drug-cancer associations, where the cancer symptoms are potentially mistaken for drug indication symptoms. However, tools to assess the magnitude of this type of bias are currently lacking. We used a simulation-based approach to investigate the impact of reverse causation on the association between the use of topical tacrolimus and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in a multinational, population-based study using topical corticosteroids (TCS) as comparator.
methodsWe used a multistate model to simulate patients' use over time of a first- (TCS) and second-line treatment (topical tacrolimus), onset of atopic dermatitis (indication for drugs) and CTCL (the studied outcome). We simulated different scenarios to mimic real-life use of the two treatments. In all scenarios, it was assumed that there was no causal effect of the first- or second-line treatment on the occurrence of CTCL. Simulated data were analysed using Cox proportional hazards models.
resultsThe simulated hazard ratios (HRs) of CTCL for patients treated with tacrolimus vs. TCS were consistently above 1 in all 9 settings in the main scenario. In our main analysis, we observed a median HR of 3.09 with 95% of the observed values between 2.11 and 4.69.
conclusionsWe found substantial reverse causation bias in the simulated CTCL risk estimates for patients treated with tacrolimus vs. TCS. Reverse causation bias may result in a false positive association between the second-line treatment and the studied outcome, and this simulation-based framework can be adapted to quantify the potential reverse causation bias.
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.