The E-value was recently introduced on the basis of earlier work as "the minimum strength of association…that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the treatment and the outcome to fully explain away a specific treatment-outcome association, conditional on the measured covariates." E-values have been proposed for wide application in observational studies evaluating causality. However, they have limitations and are prone to misinterpretation. E-values have a monotonic, almost linear relationship with effect estimates and thus offer no additional information beyond what effect estimates can convey. Whereas effect estimates are based on real data, E-values may make unrealistic assumptions. No general rule can exist about what is a "small enough" E-value, and users of the biomedical literature are not familiar with how to interpret a range of E-values. Problems arise for any measure dependent on effect estimates and their CIs-for example, bias due to selective reporting and dependence on choice of exposure contrast and level of confidence. The automation of E-values may give an excuse not to think seriously about confounding. Moreover, biases other than confounding may still undermine results. Instead of misused or misinterpreted E-values, the authors recommend judicious use of existing methods for sensitivity analyses with careful assumptions; systematic assessments of whether and how known confounders have been handled, along with consideration of their prevalence and magnitude; thorough discussion of the potential for unknown confounders considering the study design and field of application; and explicit caution in making causal claims from observational studies.

The ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial included participants with a recent acute coronary syndrome. Compared with participants receiving statins alone, those receiving a statin plus alirocumab had lower rates of a composite outcome including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors promote glycosuria, resulting in possible effects on calcium, phosphate, and vitamin D homeostasis. Canagliflozin is associated with decreased bone mineral density and a potential increased risk for fracture.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common systemic inflammatory autoimmune disease characterized by painful, swollen joints that can severely impair physical function and quality of life. The presenting symptoms of musculoskeletal pain, swelling, and stiffness are common in clinical practice, so familiarity with diagnosing and managing RA is crucial. Patients with RA are at greater risk for serious infection, respiratory disease, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality than the general population. In recent years, early diagnosis, aggressive treatment, and expanded therapeutic options of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have markedly improved both the management and long-term prognosis of RA.

Prediction models in health care use predictors to estimate for an individual the probability that a condition or disease is already present (diagnostic model) or will occur in the future (prognostic model). Publications on prediction models have become more common in recent years, and competing prediction models frequently exist for the same outcome or target population. Health care providers, guideline developers, and policymakers are often unsure which model to use or recommend, and in which persons or settings. Hence, systematic reviews of these studies are increasingly demanded, required, and performed. A key part of a systematic review of prediction models is examination of risk of bias and applicability to the intended population and setting. To help reviewers with this process, the authors developed PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) for studies developing, validating, or updating (for example, extending) prediction models, both diagnostic and prognostic. PROBAST was developed through a consensus process involving a group of experts in the field. It includes 20 signaling questions across 4 domains (participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis). This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale for including each domain and signaling question and guides researchers, reviewers, readers, and guideline developers in how to use them to assess risk of bias and applicability concerns. All concepts are illustrated with published examples across different topics. The latest version of the PROBAST checklist, accompanying documents, and filled-in examples can be downloaded from www.probast.org.

Clinical prediction models combine multiple predictors to estimate risk for the presence of a particular condition (diagnostic models) or the occurrence of a certain event in the future (prognostic models). PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool), a tool for assessing the risk of bias (ROB) and applicability of diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies, was developed by a steering group that considered existing ROB tools and reporting guidelines. The tool was informed by a Delphi procedure involving 38 experts and was refined through piloting. PROBAST is organized into the following 4 domains: participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis. These domains contain a total of 20 signaling questions to facilitate structured judgment of ROB, which was defined to occur when shortcomings in study design, conduct, or analysis lead to systematically distorted estimates of model predictive performance. PROBAST enables a focused and transparent approach to assessing the ROB and applicability of studies that develop, validate, or update prediction models for individualized predictions. Although PROBAST was designed for systematic reviews, it can be used more generally in critical appraisal of prediction model studies. Potential users include organizations supporting decision making, researchers and clinicians who are interested in evidence-based medicine or involved in guideline development, journal editors, and manuscript reviewers.

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.