The DOI matches its Crossref record; 115 of the 115 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bias in Observational Studies of Prevalent Users: Lessons for Comparative Effectiveness Research From a Meta-Analysis of Statins
Open accessAbstract
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are usually the preferred strategy with which to generate evidence of comparative effectiveness, but conducting an RCT is not always feasible. Though observational studies and RCTs often provide comparable estimates, the questioning of observational analyses has recently intensified because of randomized-observational discrepancies regarding the effect of postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy on coronary heart disease. Reanalyses of observational data that excluded prevalent users of hormone replacement therapy led to attenuated discrepancies, which begs the question of whether exclusion of prevalent users should be generally recommended. In the current study, the authors evaluated the effect of excluding prevalent users of statins in a meta-analysis of observational studies of persons with cardiovascular disease. The pooled, multivariate-adjusted mortality hazard ratio for statin use was 0.77 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65, 0.91) in 4 studies that compared incident users with nonusers, 0.70 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.78) in 13 studies that compared a combination of prevalent and incident users with nonusers, and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.66) in 13 studies that compared prevalent users with nonusers. The corresponding hazard ratio from 18 RCTs was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.91). It appears that the greater the proportion of prevalent statin users in observational studies, the larger the discrepancy between observational and randomized estimates.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
OLSSON, A. G., McMurray, J. J. V., Thorgeirsson, G., Spaulding, C. M., Slattery, J., Pyörälà, K., Færgeman, O., Wright, R. S., Berg, K. M., Wilhelmsen, L., et al. (1994) · The Lancet · Cited by 8,467
Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease with Pravastatin in Men with Hypercholesterolemia
Shepherd, J., Cobbe, S. M., Ford, I., Isles, C. G., Lorimer, A. R., Macfarlane, P. W., McKillop, J. H., & Packard, C. J. (1995) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199511163332001 · Cited by 7,449
Rosuvastatin to Prevent Vascular Events in Men and Women with Elevated C-Reactive Protein
Ridker, P. M., Danielson, E., Fonseca, F. A. H., Genest, J., Gotto, A. M., Kastelein, J. J. P., Koenig, W., Libby, P., Lorenzatti, A. J., MacFadyen, J. G., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0807646 · Cited by 6,674
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61350-5 · Cited by 6,550
Downs, J. R., Clearfield, M., Weis, S., Whitney, E., Shapiro, D. R., Beere, P. A., Langendorfer, A., Stein, E. A., Kruyer, W., Gotto, Jr., et al. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.20.1615 · Cited by 5,236
Sever, P. S., Dahlöf, B., Poulter, N. R., Wedel, H., Beevers, G., Caulfield, M., Collins, R., Kjeldsen, S. E., Kristinsson, A., McInnes, G. T., et al. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12948-0 · Cited by 3,782
Colhoun, H. M., Betteridge, D. J., Durrington, P. N., Hitman, G. A., W Neil, H. A., Livingstone, S. J., Thomason, M. J., Mackness, M. I., Charlton-Menys, V., & Fuller, J. H. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16895-5 · Cited by 3,755
Cited by
Causal inference and longitudinal data: a case study of religion and mental health
VanderWeele, T. J., Jackson, J. W., & Li, S. (2016) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s00127-016-1281-9 · Cited by 322
Gheorghiade, M., Fonarow, G. C., van Veldhuisen, D. J., Cleland, J. G. F., Butler, J., Epstein, A. E., Patel, K., Aban, I. B., Aronow, W. S., Anker, S. D., et al. (2013) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht120 · Cited by 192
GLP-1 based therapies and disease course of inflammatory bowel disease
Villumsen, M., Schelde, A. B., Jimenez-Solem, E., Jess, T., & Allin, K. H. (2021) · eClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100979 · Cited by 97
Vandenbroucke, J., & Pearce, N. (2015) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwv225 · Cited by 67
Association of statin use with clinical outcomes in patients with triple‐negative breast cancer
Nowakowska, M. K., Lei, X., Thompson, M. T., Shaitelman, S. F., Wehner, M. R., Woodward, W. A., Giordano, S. H., & Nead, K. T. (2021) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.33797 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Danaei, G., Tavakkoli, M., & Hernán, M. A.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-01-05
- Volume
- 175
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 250-262
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W2125241858
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 115
- FWCI
- 3.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bias in Observational Studies of Prevalent Users: Lessons for Comparative Effectiveness Research From a Meta-Analysis of Statins. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/aje/kwr301
- The paper
- Danaei, G., Tavakkoli, M., & Hernán, M. A. (2012). Bias in Observational Studies of Prevalent Users: Lessons for Comparative Effectiveness Research From a Meta-Analysis of Statins. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwr301
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
