ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2023
Regression discontinuity design to evaluate the effect of statins on myocardial infarction in electronic health records.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics study: Design and analytic framework for assessing the impact of genome-informed risk assessments.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Many studies, but little certainty about the effects of statin discontinuation on outcomes.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Regression discontinuity design (RDD) is a quasi-experimental method intended for causal inference in observational settings. While RDD is gaining popularity in clinical studies, there are limited real-world studies examining the performance on estimating known trial casual effects. The goal of this paper is to estimate the effect of statins on myocardial infarction (MI) using RDD and compare with propensity score matching and Cox regression. For the RDD, we leveraged a 2008 UK guideline that recommends statins if a patient's 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score > 20%. We used UK electronic health record data from the Health Improvement Network on 49,242 patients aged 65 + in 2008-2011 (baseline) without a history of CVD and no statin use in the two years prior to the CVD risk score assessment. Both the regression discontinuity (n = 19,432) and the propensity score matched populations (n = 24,814) demonstrated good balance of confounders. Using RDD, the adjusted point estimate for statins on MI was in the protective direction and similar to the statin effect observed in clinical trials, although the confidence interval included the null (HR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.4, 1.4). Conversely, the adjusted estimates using propensity score matching and Cox regression remained in the harmful direction: HR = 2.42 (95% CI 1.96, 2.99) and 2.51 (2.12, 2.97). RDD appeared superior to other methods in replicating the known protective effect of statins with MI, although precision was poor. Our findings suggest that, when used appropriately, RDD can expand the scope of clinical investigations aimed at causal inference by leveraging treatment rules from everyday clinical practice.
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.