Study Metrics
Total Sample
10926
Treatment Group
9728
Control Group
1198
Covariates
40
PICO Comparisons
1
Quality Indicators
Transparency
High
DAG Usage
No
QBA Performed
No
Study Information
| First Author: | Matthews |
| Publication Year: | 2024 |
| DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-024-01119-3 |
| Preprint: | No preprint |
Institution & Funding
| Institution Type: | Academic |
| Institutions: | Karolinska Institutet, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Uppsala University, Lund University |
| Funding: | Declared: Research institute, NGO |
| Funding Institutions: | Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. This research was also supported in part by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Methods Research Award ME-2021C2-22365 (the manuscript does not reflect the views of PCORI, PCORI’s Board of Governors, or the PCORI Methodology Committee). |
Study Context
| Disease: | Myocardial infarction |
| Disease Category: | Cardiology |
| Data Type: | Registry |
| Number of Data Sources: | 5 |
| Geography: | Sweden |
| Eligible Sample: | 10926.0 |
| Number of Emulations: | 1 |
| Number of Treatments: | 2 |
Analytical Methods
| Missing Data Method: | Median |
| Matching Method: | IPTW |
| Analysis Method: | Logistic regression |
| Estimand: | ITT, PP |
Quality Methods
Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG)
Not Used
Quantitative Bias Analysis (QBA)
Not Performed
Target Trial Information
| Target Trial Name: | REDUCE-AMI |
| Registration Number: | NCT03278509 |
| Target Trial DOI: | https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjcvp/pvac070 |
TTE vs RCT Comparisons
Detailed comparison between Target Trial Emulation results and corresponding Randomized Controlled Trial outcomes.
death or recurrent myocardial infarction
REDUCE-AMI
HR
Efficacy
Population
Adults ≥18 years with type 1 myocardial infarction
Intervention
Long-term oral beta blockers
Comparison
No beta blockers
Outcome
death or recurrent myocardial infarction
RCT Result
0.96
95% CI: [0.79, 1.16]
vs
TTE Result
0.78
95% CI: [0.59, 1.12]
Concordance Assessment
Confidence Interval Overlap:
Yes
CIs overlap, suggesting concordance
CIs overlap, suggesting concordance
Direction Agreement:
Same Direction
Both point to similar conclusion
Both point to similar conclusion
Transparency Indicators
Protocol Registration
Available
Data Sharing
Not Available
Code Sharing
Available
Overall Transparency Score:
High Transparency - This study meets good transparency standards.
Conflicts & Funding
| Conflicts of Interest: | Declared: Financial |
| COI Institutions: | Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Cytel, ProPublica, ADIA Lab, Flatiron and Foundation Medicine |
| Funding Source: | Declared: Research institute, NGO |
| Funding Institutions: | Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. This research was also supported in part by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Methods Research Award ME-2021C2-22365 (the manuscript does not reflect the views of PCORI, PCORI’s Board of Governors, or the PCORI Methodology Committee). |