{
  "abstract": "Whether inhaled therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy or long-acting bronchodilators (LABD)) reduce non-respiratory adverse events, such as mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), is subject to debate among those who study and treat this patient population. Evidence is mixed: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), post hoc analyses thereof and observational data often present different results. Triallists argue that observational research is subject to greater bias, while observational researchers argue that trial designs are not always perfect or representative of patient populations. As methods evolve and real-world data that is more representative of general disease populations becomes available, is it time to reassess how we think about observational versus RCT findings?",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Anne E Ioannides"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK"
      ],
      "name": "Jennifer K Quint"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Is it time to re-evaluate the levels of evidence in medical research: commentary on inhaled corticosteroids in COPD",
  "uid": "3001b39b-a56a-5b03-9d26-ab96716a92b8"
}