Evaluating sources of bias in observational studies.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A national population-based study of mortality and risk factors in COVID-19-hospitalized patients in Spain (2020-2021).Frontiers in public health · 2025
   Article
2. Clinical characteristics of children hospitalized with cellulitis in Spain (2016-2022). A population-based analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025
   Article
3. Everolimus plus endocrine therapy beyond CDK4/6 inhibitors progression for HR+ /HER2- advanced breast cancer: a real-world evidence cohort.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2024
   Observational
4. Causal pathways in preeclampsia: a Mendelian randomization study in European populations.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Evaluating sources of bias in observational studies of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker use during COVID-19: beyond confounding.2021

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as