Cited by 212Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Making inferences on treatment effects from real world data: propensity scores, confounding by indication, and other perils for the unwary in observational research

Open access

Abstract

Propensity score based methods are used increasingly to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments when evidence from randomised trials is not available. However, users need to be aware of their strengths and limitations

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.f6409

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 20 references

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. For personal use only: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe RESEARCH METHODS & REPORTING on 5 November 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://www.bmj.com/ BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.f6409 on 11 November 2013. Downloaded from 9 Trends in the characteristics, treatment and prognosis of people with symptomatic heart failure and the use of aldosterone antagonists: analysis plan. www.ucl.ac.uk/priment/ documents/Heart-Failure-Analysis-Plan.
  2. Saksena S, Slee A, Waldo AL, Freemantle N, Reynolds M, Rosenberg Y, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in the AFFIRM trial: an assessment of individual antiarrhythmic drug therapies compared to rate control using propensity score matched analyses. J Am Clin Cardiol 2011;19:1975-85.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 212

Metadata

Authors
Freemantle, N., Marston, L., Walters, K., Wood, J., Reynolds, M. R., & Petersen, I.
Affiliations
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • Lahey Hospital and Medical Center (US)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-11-11
Volume
347
Issue
nov11 3
Pages
f6409-f6409
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1989803330
Cited by
211
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 5
FWCI
12.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
propensity score, confounding by indication, real-world data, observational studies, treatment effect estimation, causal inference, effectiveness evaluation
MeSH terms
Humans, Research, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Propensity Score, Observational Studies as Topic

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