Letters
Treatment effects in routine data and trials
Authors’ reply to Pérol and colleagues
BMJ 2016; 355 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6747 (Published 16 December 2016) Cite this as: BMJ 2016;355:i6747
- Lars G Hemkens, senior researcher1 2,
- Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis, clinical associate professor3 4,
- John P A Ioannidis, professor1 4 5 6
- 1Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
- 2Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
- 3Department of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
- 4Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS)
- 5Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
- 6Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford, California, USA
- lars.hemkens{at}usb.ch
We thank Pérol and colleagues for their reflections on our work on how routinely collected data might complement randomised controlled trials.1 2 We agree that routinely collected data may be used to analyse any number of associations for combinations of medical interventions, patient characteristics, settings, and concurrent treatments. They may indeed …
Log in
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Subscribe from £173 *
Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.
* For online subscription
Access this article for 1 day for:
£38 / $45 / €42 (excludes VAT)
You can download a PDF version for your personal record.