Dataset Information

Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Searches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS:Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

SUBMITTER: Golder S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3086872 | biostudies-literature | 2011 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview.

Golder Su S Loke Yoon K YK Bland Martin M

PLoS medicine 20110503 5

<h4>Background</h4>There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>Searches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference c ...[more]

PMID: 21559325

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) and important health outcomes in generally healthy or overweight/obese adults and children. DESIGN:Systematic review following standard Cochrane review methodology. DATA SOURCES:Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant publications. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Studies including generally healthy adults or children with or without overweight or obesity were eligible. Included study designs allowed for a direct comparison of no intake or lower intake of NSS with higher NSS intake. NSSs had to be clearly named, the dose had to be within the acceptable daily intake, and the intervention duration had to be at least seven days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Body weight or body mass index, glycaemic control, oral health, eating behaviour, preference for sweet taste, cancer, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, mood, behaviour, neurocognition, and adverse effects. RESULTS:The search resulted in 13?941 unique records. Of 56 individual studies that provided data for this review, 35 were observational studies. In adults, evidence of very low and low certainty from a limited number of small studies indicated a small beneficial effect of NSSs on body mass index (mean difference -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.19 to -0.01; two studies, n=174) and fasting blood glucose (-0.16 mmol/L, -0.26 to -0.06; two, n=52). Lower doses of NSSs were associated with lower weight gain (-0.09 kg, -0.13 to -0.05; one, n=17?934) compared with higher doses of NSSs (very low certainty of evidence). For all other outcomes, no differences were detected between the use and non-use of NSSs, or between different doses of NSSs. No evidence of any effect of NSSs was seen on overweight or obese adults or children actively trying to lose weight (very low to moderate certainty). In children, a smaller increase in body mass index z score was observed with NSS intake compared with sugar intake (-0.15, -0.17 to -0.12; two, n=528, moderate certainty of evidence), but no significant differences were observed in body weight (-0.60 kg, -1.33 to 0.14; two, n=467, low certainty of evidence), or between different doses of NSSs (very low to moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS:Most health outcomes did not seem to have differences between the NSS exposed and unexposed groups. Of the few studies identified for each outcome, most had few participants, were of short duration, and their methodological and reporting quality was limited; therefore, confidence in the reported results is limited. Future studies should assess the effects of NSSs with an appropriate intervention duration. Detailed descriptions of interventions, comparators, and outcomes should be included in all reports. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:Prospero CRD42017047668.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the breadth, validity, and presence of biases of the associations of vitamin D with diverse outcomes. DESIGN:Umbrella review of the evidence across systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations and randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Embase, and screening of citations and references. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Three types of studies were eligible for the umbrella review: systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined observational associations between circulating vitamin D concentrations and any clinical outcome; and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials assessing supplementation with vitamin D or active compounds (both established and newer compounds of vitamin D). RESULTS:107 systematic literature reviews and 74 meta-analyses of observational studies of plasma vitamin D concentrations and 87 meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation were identified. The relation between vitamin D and 137 outcomes has been explored, covering a wide range of skeletal, malignant, cardiovascular, autoimmune, infectious, metabolic, and other diseases. Ten outcomes were examined by both meta-analyses of observational studies and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials, but the direction of the effect and level of statistical significance was concordant only for birth weight (maternal vitamin D status or supplementation). On the basis of the available evidence, an association between vitamin D concentrations and birth weight, dental caries in children, maternal vitamin D concentrations at term, and parathyroid hormone concentrations in patients with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis is probable, but further studies and better designed trials are needed to draw firmer conclusions. In contrast to previous reports, evidence does not support the argument that vitamin D only supplementation increases bone mineral density or reduces the risk of fractures or falls in older people. CONCLUSIONS:Despite a few hundred systematic reviews and meta-analyses, highly convincing evidence of a clear role of vitamin D does not exist for any outcome, but associations with a selection of outcomes are probable.

Project description:BackgroundThere have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsWe searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects.ResultsThirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions.ConclusionsOverall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.

Project description:IntroductionThere has been increasing interest in pragmatic trials methodology. As a result, tools such as the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) are being used prospectively to help researchers design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) within the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. There may be value in applying the PRECIS-2 tool retrospectively in a systematic review setting as it could provide important information about how to pool data based on the degree of pragmatism.ObjectivesTo investigate the role of pragmatism as a source of heterogeneity in systematic reviews by (1) identifying systematic reviews with meta-analyses of RCTs that have moderate to high heterogeneity, (2) applying PRECIS-2 to RCTs of systematic reviews, (3) evaluating the inter-rater reliability of PRECIS-2, (4) determining how much of this heterogeneity may be explained by pragmatism.MethodsA cross-sectional methodological review will be conducted on systematic reviews of RCTs published in the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2014 to 1 January 2017. Included systematic reviews will have a minimum of 10 RCTs in the meta-analysis of the primary outcome and moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2≥50%). Of the eligible systematic reviews, a random selection of 10 will be included for quantitative evaluation. In each systematic review, RCTs will be scored using the PRECIS-2 tool, in duplicate. Agreement between raters will be measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression will be used to evaluate how much variability in the primary outcome may be due to pragmatism.DisseminationThis review will be among the first to evaluate the PRECIS-2 tool in a systematic review setting. Results from this research will provide inter-rater reliability information about PRECIS-2 and may be used to provide methodological guidance when dealing with pragmatism in systematic reviews and subgroup considerations. On completion, this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Dataset Information

Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview.

Publications

Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets