To the Editor We read with great interest the article by Joseph et al.1 This is a 420-patient case-control study with propensity score matching that examines the value of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA). Patients undergoing REBOA were found to have worse outcomes than matched controls. However, the use of causal language surrounding the findings of the article—that REBOA use increases mortality risk—is unsupported. We posit that at least 2 biases regarding hospital confounding and time to surgery and selection bias for survivors draw this conclusion into question.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Yuan W, Cook CH, Brat GA. Addressing Limitations in Case-Control Study of Patients Undergoing Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(12):1167. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2744
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: