You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 297 No. 19, May 16, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (1)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letters
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Randomized Controlled Trial
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Analytic Approaches to Observational Studies With Treatment Selection Bias

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: The study by Dr Stukel and colleagues1 is an empirical confirmation of a theoretical notion that has been described for decades: therapeutic benefits can almost never be assessed by observational studies.2-3 The exceptions are instances in which an "instrumental variable" can be identified as a pseudo-randomizer3 or when effect sizes are very large. Randomization is necessary because the application of therapy is aimed at intended beneficial effects and is guided by the perceived prognosis of the patient. The complexity of therapeutic decisions leads to incomparability of treated and untreated persons in ways that cannot be remedied by statistical analysis in observational studies because these decisions cannot be summarized in a number of crudely measured variables.2 This is demonstrated convincingly by Stukel et al. Neither analysis for confounding nor propensity score analysis was sufficient; only an instrumental variable analysis approached the results from randomized trials.1

In contrast, harmful . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Jan P. Vandenbroucke, MD
j.p.vandenbroucke@lumc.nl
Leiden University Medical Center
Leiden, the Netherlands



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTERS

Analytic Approaches to Observational Studies With Treatment Selection Bias
Ilya Novikov and Ofra Kalter-Leibovici
JAMA. 2007;297(19):2077.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Analytic Approaches to Observational Studies With Treatment Selection Bias—Reply
Therese A. Stukel, Elliott S. Fisher, and David E. Wennberg
JAMA. 2007;297(19):2078.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

Analysis of Observational Studies in the Presence of Treatment Selection Bias: Effects of Invasive Cardiac Management on AMI Survival Using Propensity Score and Instrumental Variable Methods
Thérèse A. Stukel, Elliott S. Fisher, David E. Wennberg, David A. Alter, Daniel J. Gottlieb, and Marian J. Vermeulen
JAMA. 2007;297(3):278-285.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2007 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.