ArticleEuropean journal of clinical investigation2017
Comparative effects of the restriction method in two large observational studies of body mass index and mortality among adults.
Article in European journal of clinical investigation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reevaluating the protective effect of smoking on preeclampsia risk through the lens of bias.Journal of human hypertension · 2023Review
- Obesity treatment: Weight loss versus increasing fitness and physical activity for reducing health risks.iScience · 2021Review
- Body size and composition and risk of site-specific cancers in the UK Biobank and large international consortia: A mendelian randomisation study.PLoS medicine · 2021Article
- Anthropometric risk factors for ovarian cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2021Article
- The Effects of Reverse Causality and Selective Attrition on the Relationship Between Body Mass Index and Mortality in Postmenopausal Women.American journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
- Comparing Anthropometric Indicators of Visceral and General Adiposity as Determinants of Overall and Cardiovascular Mortality.Archives of Iranian medicine · 2019Article
- Flawed methods and inappropriate conclusions for health policy on overweight and obesity: the Global BMI Mortality Collaboration meta-analysis.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2019Article
- The evolution of body composition in oncology-epidemiology, clinical trials, and the future of patient care: facts and numbers.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA method applied in some large studies of weight and mortality is to begin with a well-defined analytic cohort and use successive restrictions to control for methodologic bias and arrive at final analytic results. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo observational studies of body mass index and mortality allow a comparative assessment of these restrictions in very large data sets. One was a meta-analysis of individual participant data with a sample size of 8 million. The second was a study of a South Korean cohort with a sample size of 12 million. Both presented results for participants without pre-existing disease before and after restricting the sample to never-smokers and deleting the first 5 years of follow-up.
resultsInitial results from both studies were generally similar, with hazard ratios (HRs) below 1 for overweight and above 1 for underweight and obesity. The meta-analysis showed higher HRs for overweight and obesity after the restrictions, including a change in the direction of the HR for overweight from 0·99 (95% CI: 0·98-1·01) to 1·11 (95% CI: 1·10, 1·11). The South Korean data showed little effect of the restrictions and the HR for overweight changed from 0·85 (95% CI: 0·84-0·86) to 0·91 (95% CI: 0·90, 0·91). The summary effect size for overweight was 0·90 (95% CI: 0·89-0·91) before restrictions and 1·02 (95% CI: 1·02, 1·03) after restrictions.
conclusionsThe effect of the restrictions is not consistent across studies, weakening the argument that analyses without such restrictions lack validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.