Observational studyAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Endocrine therapies and mortality risk in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: benchmarking an observational analysis against a randomized trial.
Observational study in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Concordance between target trial emulation and randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Benchmarking an observational analysis against a randomized trial increases our confidence in the use of observational data for causal inference. The Breast International Group (BIG 1-98) randomized trial compared the effect of letrozole and tamoxifen on the risk of death in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. We designed a target trial that aimed to ask the same question as the one asked in BIG 1-98 and emulated it in Swedish registry data. The primary results from our observational analysis showed an increased risk of death in those who initiated aromatase inhibitors compared with tamoxifen [5-year risk difference = 2.5% (95% CI, 0.2-4.6)], which was discordant to the results from BIG 1-98. However, estimates were more closely aligned when our observational analysis was restricted to nonusers of opioids or antidepressants [5-year risk difference = -0.9 (95% CI, -4.2 to 2.0)]. In conclusion, when benchmarking an observational analysis against a trial, alignment of eligibility criteria with the index trial is not always sufficient and further study population restrictions may be required to address unmeasured confounding.
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.