ArticleBMC medicine2026
Concordance between nutritional cohorts and randomized trials: biological confirmation or statistical consequence? A re-analysis of Stadelmaier et al.
Article in BMC medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStadelmaier et al. recently reported a pooled ratio of risk ratios (RRR) of 1.00 between population, intervention/exposure, comparator, outcome (PI/ECO) matched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, interpreting this as evidence that randomized trials "confirm" observational findings in nutrition with "tremendous public health implications." We hypothesized that this apparent agreement is not a validation of concordance, but an expected statistical effect arising from the pooling of null or small effect sizes with large variances rather than pairwise concordance.
methodsWe re-analyzed the authors' binary dataset (n = 54 pairs) using a permutation framework (B = 10,000) in which cohort studies were randomly reassigned to RCTs, breaking the original pairing (both globally and restricted within exposure-type strata) while preserving marginal distributions.
resultsUnder random pairing, 99.96% of permuted pooled RRRs fell within the authors' reported confidence interval [0.91,1.10], and the observed RRR was statistically indistinguishable from the random-pairing permutation distribution (p = 0.12). A pairwise discrepancy statistic showed no improvement with matching over random pairing (p = 0.21). A precision-weighted statistic was significant (p = 0.008), but weight was highly concentrated: 4 pairs (7% of n) accounted for 54.8% of total weight, and the effective number of pairs was 9.9 (18% of n). Qualitative concordance using the authors' prior criteria was only 13% (7/54 pairs).
conclusionsA pooled RRR near 1.00 indicates only that cohort effect sizes are not systematically different from RCT estimates. In this dataset, an RRR near 1 is a result expected under random pairing. Pairwise agreement is not improved by PI/ECO matching for typical comparisons; the significant weighted statistic reflects alignment among a small minority of high-precision pairs, not "most" findings. Pooled RRR lacks resolution as a confirmation metric in fields with small effects and should not be interpreted as evidence of replication; otherwise, it may inappropriately influence evidence synthesis practices.
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.