Concordance of results from randomized and observational analyses within the same study: A re-analysis of the women's health initiative limited-access dataset
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 10, Issue: 10, Page: e0139975
2015
- 11Citations
- 116Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations11
- Citation Indexes9
- CrossRef5
- Clinical Citations1
- PubMed Guidelines1
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures116
- Readers116
- 116
Article Description
Background Observational studies (OS) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often report discordant results. In the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D (WHI CaD) RCT, women were randomly assigned to CaD or placebo, but were permitted to use personal calcium and vitamin D supplements, creating a unique opportunity to compare results from randomized and observational analyses within the same study. Methods WHI CaD was a 7-year RCT of 1g calcium/400IU vitamin D daily in 36,282 post-meno-pausal women. We assessed the effects of CaD on cardiovascular events, death, cancer and fracture in a randomized design-comparing CaD with placebo in 43% of women not using personal calcium or vitamin D supplements- and in a observational design-comparing women in the placebo group (44%) using personal calcium and vitamin D supplements with non-users. Incidence was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models, and results from the two study designs deemed concordant if the absolute difference in hazard ratios was <0.15. We also compared results from WHI CaD to those from the WHI Observational Study(WHI OS), which used similar methodology for analyses and recruited from the same population. Results In WHI CaD, for myocardial infarction and stroke, results of unadjusted and 6/8 covariate-controlled observational analyses (age-adjusted, multivariate-adjusted, propensity-adjusted, propensity-matched) were not concordant with the randomized design results. For death, hip and total fracture, colorectal and total cancer, unadjusted and covariate-con-trolled observational results were concordant with randomized results. For breast cancer, unadjusted and age-adjusted observational results were concordant with randomized results, but only 1/3 other covariate-controlled observational results were concordant with randomized results. Multivariate-adjusted results from WHI OS were concordant with randomized WHI CaD results for only 4/8 endpoints. Conclusions Results of randomized analyses in WHI CaD were concordant with observational analyses for 5/8 endpoints in WHI CaD and 4/8 endpoints in WHI OS.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0139975; 10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t005; 10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t004; 10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.g001
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84947786074&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26440516; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t005; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t005; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t004; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t004; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t004; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t005; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t005; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t005; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0139975; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t004; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975.t002; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975&type=printable
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know