Case-control studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-ABX-15 standard review
Fluoroquinolones and aortic aneurysm (Taiwan)
Risk of Aortic Dissection and Aortic Aneurysm in Patients Taking Oral Fluoroquinolone.
Overview
Lee CC et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2015 · PMID 26436523 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5389
Current use was linked to higher risk of rare aortic events.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Link.
- How was the study done?
Case-control.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
1477 cases.
- What was actually found?
Higher risk.
- How large was the observed effect?
RR 2.43.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Rare.
- What are the study's limitations?
Observational.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Lee CC, Lee MT, Chen YS, Lee SH, Chen YS, Chen SC, Chang SC
- Journal
- JAMA Intern Med
- Year
- 2015
- Identifier
- PMID 26436523 DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5389
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract/record
2. Research question
Fluoroquinolones and aortic aneurysm/dissection
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Case-control study – Nested case-control (Taiwan NHIRD)
- Population
1 million insured
- Country
Taiwan
- Period
2000-2011
- Sample size
1477 cases; 147,700 controls
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
FQ use
- Comparator
Non-use
- Endpoints
AA/AD hospitalisation
- Statistical methods
Propensity-adjusted RR
5. Actual results
- Results
Current use RR 2.43 (1.83-3.22); past use RR 1.48 (1.18-1.86); surgery-requiring RR 2.15 (0.97-4.60).
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Rare events; physicians should be aware.
6. Strengths
- Large
7. Weaknesses
- Observational
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-I
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Established signal.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Bibliography only.
- A. What was actually studied?
Aortic events.
- B. What did the authors find?
Increased risk.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Rare events.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Harm.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Justified.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable