An empirical evaluation of the impact scenario of pooling bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research

Nils Bröckelmann · Julia Stadelmaier · Louisa Harms · Charlotte Kubiak · Jessica Beyerbach · Martin Wolkewitz +2 more

9 citations0/0 files storedBMC Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Advanced Causal Inference Techniques Statistical Methods in Epidemiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies are the most common study design types used to assess treatment effects of medical interventions. We aimed to hypothetically pool bodies of evidence (BoE) from RCTs with matched BoE from cohort studies included in the same systematic review. METHODS: BoE derived from systematic reviews of RCTs and cohort studies published in the 13 medical journals with the highest impact factor were considered. We re-analyzed effect estimates of the included systematic reviews by pooling BoE from RCTs with BoE from cohort studies using random and common effects models. We evaluated statistical heterogeneity, 95% prediction intervals, weight of BoE from RCTs to the pooled estimate, and whether integration of BoE from cohort studies modified the conclusion from BoE of RCTs. RESULTS: was 48%, and the median contributed percentage weight of RCTs to the pooled estimates was 40%. The direction of effect between BoE from RCTs and pooled effect estimates was mainly concordant (79.7%). The integration of BoE from cohort studies modified the conclusion (by examining the 95% CI) from BoE of RCTs in 32 (27%) of the 118 BoE-pairs, but the direction of effect was mainly concordant (88%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide insights for the potential impact of pooling both BoE in systematic reviews. In medical research, it is often important to rely on both evidence of RCTs and cohort studies to get a whole picture of an investigated intervention-disease association. A decision for or against pooling different study designs should also always take into account, for example, PI/ECO similarity, risk of bias, coherence of effect estimates, and also the trustworthiness of the evidence. Overall, there is a need for more research on the influence of those issues on potential pooling.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses 2002Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 2016ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions 2011Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses 2016New evidence pyramid 2017Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research 2018Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.