Dataset Information

Bias in observational studies of prevalent users: lessons for comparative effectiveness research from a meta-analysis of statins.

ABSTRACT: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are usually the preferred strategy with which to generate evidence of comparative effectiveness, but conducting an RCT is not always feasible. Though observational studies and RCTs often provide comparable estimates, the questioning of observational analyses has recently intensified because of randomized-observational discrepancies regarding the effect of postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy on coronary heart disease. Reanalyses of observational data that excluded prevalent users of hormone replacement therapy led to attenuated discrepancies, which begs the question of whether exclusion of prevalent users should be generally recommended. In the current study, the authors evaluated the effect of excluding prevalent users of statins in a meta-analysis of observational studies of persons with cardiovascular disease. The pooled, multivariate-adjusted mortality hazard ratio for statin use was 0.77 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65, 0.91) in 4 studies that compared incident users with nonusers, 0.70 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.78) in 13 studies that compared a combination of prevalent and incident users with nonusers, and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.66) in 13 studies that compared prevalent users with nonusers. The corresponding hazard ratio from 18 RCTs was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.91). It appears that the greater the proportion of prevalent statin users in observational studies, the larger the discrepancy between observational and randomized estimates.

SUBMITTER: Danaei G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3271813 | biostudies-other | 2012 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bias in observational studies of prevalent users: lessons for comparative effectiveness research from a meta-analysis of statins.

Danaei Goodarz G Tavakkoli Mohammad M Hernán Miguel A MA

American journal of epidemiology 20120105 4

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are usually the preferred strategy with which to generate evidence of comparative effectiveness, but conducting an RCT is not always feasible. Though observational studies and RCTs often provide comparable estimates, the questioning of observational analyses has recently intensified because of randomized-observational discrepancies regarding the effect of postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy on coronary heart disease. Reanalyses of observational data that ...[more]

PMID: 22223710

Similar Datasets

Project description:Collider bias, or stratifying data by a covariate consequence rather than cause (confounder) of treatment and outcome, plagues randomised and observational trauma research. Of the seven trials of prehospital hypertonic saline in dextran (HSD) that have been evaluated in systematic reviews, none found an overall between-group difference in survival, but four reported significant subgroup effects. We hypothesised that an avoidable type of collider bias often introduced inadvertently into trauma comparative effectiveness research could explain the incongruous findings.The two most recent HSD trials, a single-site pilot and a multi-site pivotal study, provided data for a secondary analysis to more closely examine the potential for collider bias. The two trials had followed the a priori statistical analysis plan to subgroup patients by a post-randomisation covariate and well-established surrogate for bleeding severity, massive transfusion (MT), ? 10 unit of red blood cells within 24h of admission. Despite favourable HSD effects in the MT subgroup, opposite effects in the non-transfused subgroup halted the pivotal trial early. In addition to analyzing the data from the two trials, we constructed causal diagrams and performed a meta-analysis of the results from all seven trials to assess the extent to which collider bias could explain null overall effects with subgroup heterogeneity.As in previous trials, HSD induced significantly greater increases in systolic blood pressure (SBP) from prehospital to admission than control crystalloid (p=0.003). Proportionately more HSD than control decedents accrued in the non-transfused subgroup, but with paradoxically longer survival. Despite different study populations and a span of over 20 years across the seven trials, the reported mortality effects were consistently null, summary RR=0.99 (p=0.864, homogeneity p=0.709).HSD delayed blood transfusion by modifying standard triggers like SBP with no detectable effect on survival. The reported heterogeneous HSD effects in subgroups can be explained by collider bias that trauma researchers can avoid by improved covariate selection and data capture strategies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the risk of industry sponsorship bias in a systematically identified set of placebo controlled and active comparator trials of statins.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.EligibilityOpen label and double blind randomised controlled trials comparing one statin with another at any dose or with control (placebo, diet, or usual care) for adults with, or at risk of developing, cardiovascular disease. Only trials that lasted longer than four weeks with more than 50 participants per trial arm were included. Two investigators assessed study eligibility.Data sourcesBibliographic databases and reference lists of relevant articles published between 1 January 1985 and 10 March 2013.Data extractionOne investigator extracted data and another confirmed accuracy.Main outcome measureMean absolute change from baseline concentration of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.Data synthesisStudy level outcomes from randomised trials were combined using random effects network meta-analyses.ResultsWe included 183 randomised controlled trials of statins, 103 of which were two-armed or multi-armed active comparator trials. When all of the existing randomised evidence was synthesised in network meta-analyses, there were clear differences in the LDL cholesterol lowering effects of individual statins at different doses. In general, higher doses resulted in higher reductions in baseline LDL cholesterol levels. Of a total of 146 industry sponsored trials, 64 were placebo controlled (43.8%). The corresponding number for the non-industry sponsored trials was 16 (43.2%). Of the 35 unique comparisons available in 37 non-industry sponsored trials, 31 were also available in industry sponsored trials. There were no systematic differences in magnitude between the LDL cholesterol lowering effects of individual statins observed in industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored trials. In industry sponsored trials, the mean change from baseline LDL cholesterol level was on average 1.77 mg/dL (95% credible interval -11.12 to 7.66) lower than the change observed in non-industry sponsored trials. There was no detectable inconsistency in the evidence network.ConclusionsOur analysis shows that the findings obtained from industry sponsored statin trials seem similar in magnitude as those in non-industry sources. There are actual differences in the effectiveness of individual statins at various doses that explain previously observed discrepancies between industry and non-industry sponsored trials.

Dataset Information

Bias in observational studies of prevalent users: lessons for comparative effectiveness research from a meta-analysis of statins.

Publications

Bias in observational studies of prevalent users: lessons for comparative effectiveness research from a meta-analysis of statins.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets