You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Correspondence
Reaching the wrong conclusion: residual confounding by indication
  1. Jonathan A Batty1,
  2. Alistair S Hall2
  1. 1 Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK
  2. 2 Department of Cardiology, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jonathan A Batty, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK; jonathan.batty{at}mail.harvard.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312446

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    To the Editor In a recent edition of Heart, Potier et al reported the results of a large, observational analysis of the REACH registry.1 The authors sought to retrospectively compare clinical outcomes in angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and ACE inhibitor (ACEi) treated patients, using propensity score matching to reduce confounding by indication. They conclude that treatment with ARB was more effective than with ACEi, across a wide spectrum of cardiovascular diseases and with regard to a number of different clinical outcomes. However, we …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @JonnyBatty

    • Competing interests ASH has received speaker honoraria from Servier.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.