Study Design and Setting
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
- Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.JAMA. 1998; 279: 1615-1622
- Epidemiology by Design: A Causal Approach to the Health Sciences.Oxford University Press, New York2019
- Level of evidence for promising subgroup findings in an overall non-significant trial.Stat Methods Med Res. 2016; 25: 2193-2213
- Subgroup analysis as a source of spurious findings: an illustration using new data on alcohol intake and coronary heart disease.Addiction. 2015; 110: 183-184
- Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives.Health Technol Assess. 2001; 5: 1-56
- Interpretation of subgroup analyses in randomized trials: heterogeneity versus secondary interventions.Ann Intern Med. 2011; 154: 680-683
- Target validity and the hierarchy of study designs.Am J Epidemiol. 2019; 188: 438-443
- Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research.Epidemiology. 1999; 10: 37-48
- Disparity of race reporting and representation in clinical trials leading to cancer drug approvals from 2008 to 2018.JAMA Oncol. 2019; : e191870
- Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider.Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 39: 417-420
- Four types of effect modification: a classification based on directed acyclic graphs.Epidemiology. 2007; 18: 561-568
- Invited commentary: selection bias without colliders.Am J Epidemiol. 2017; 185: 1048-1050
- Twenty years post-NIH Revitalization Act: enhancing minority participation in clinical trials (EMPaCT): laying the groundwork for improving minority clinical trial accrual: renewing the case for enhancing minority participation in cancer clinical trials.Cancer. 2014; 120: 1091-1096
- Race and ethnicity in trials of antihypertensive therapy to prevent cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review.Ann Fam Med. 2007; 5: 444-452
- Transportability of trial results using inverse odds of sampling weights.Am J Epidemiol. 2017; 186: 1010-1014
- Generalizing evidence from randomized clinical trials to target populations: the ACTG 320 trial.Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 172: 107-115
- Limitations of individual causal models, causal graphs, and ignorability assumptions, as illustrated by random confounding and design unfaithfulness.Eur J Epidemiol. 2015; 30: 1101-1110
- A structural approach to selection bias.Epidemiology. 2004; 15: 615-625
- Considerations when assessing heterogeneity of treatment effect in patient-centered outcomes research.J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 100: 22-31
- Extending inferences from a randomized trial to a target population.Eur J Epidemiol. 2019; : 1-4
- The relation of collapsibility and confounding to faithfulness and stability.Epidemiology. 2015; 26: 466-472
- Matched designs and causal diagrams.Int J Epidemiol. 2013; 42: 860-869
- Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med. 2009; 361: 1139-1151
- Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 883-891
- Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation.N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 981-992
- Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities.JAMA. 2004; 291: 2720-2726
- Can DAGs clarify effect modification?.Epidemiology. 2007; 18: 569-572
Funding: MJF was supported by NIH/NHLBI R01HL118255.
Conflict of interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Conflict of interest: No conflict of interest or competing interests to disclose.