Reviewgold2024

Synthesis methods used to combine observational studies and randomised trials in published meta-analyses

Chérifa Cheurfa · Sofia Tsokani · Katerina‐Maria Kontouli · Isabelle Boutron · Anna Chaimani

18 citations0/0 files storedSystematic Reviews

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

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

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study examined the synthesis methods used in meta-analyses pooling data from observational studies (OSs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from various medical disciplines. METHODS: We searched Medline via PubMed to identify reports of systematic reviews of interventions, including and pooling data from RCTs and OSs published in 110 high-impact factor general and specialised journals between 2015 and 2019. Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate. To describe the synthesis methods used in the meta-analyses, we considered the first meta-analysis presented in each article. RESULTS: Overall, 132 reports were identified with a median number of included studies of 14 [9-26]. The median number of OSs was 6.5 [3-12] and that of RCTs was 3 [1-6]. The effect estimates recorded from OSs (i.e., adjusted or unadjusted) were not specified in 82% (n = 108) of the meta-analyses. An inverse-variance common-effect model was used in 2% (n = 3) of the meta-analyses, a random-effects model was used in 55% (n = 73), and both models were used in 40% (n = 53). A Poisson regression model was used in 1 meta-analysis, and 2 meta-analyses did not report the model they used. The mean total weight of OSs in the studied meta-analyses was 57.3% (standard deviation, ± 30.3%). Only 44 (33%) meta-analyses reported results stratified by study design. Of them, the results between OSs and RCTs had a consistent direction of effect in 70% (n = 31). Study design was explored as a potential source of heterogeneity in 79% of the meta-analyses, and confounding factors were investigated in only 10% (n = 13). Publication bias was assessed in 70% (n = 92) of the meta-analyses. Tau-square was reported in 32 meta-analyses with a median of 0.07 [0-0.30]. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of OSs in a meta-analysis on interventions could provide useful information. However, considerations of several methodological and conceptual aspects of OSs, that are required to avoid misleading findings, were often absent or insufficiently reported in our sample.

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

References

2016ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions 2008Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses 2001Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies 2018GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence 2007Should Meta-Analyses of Interventions Include Observational Studies in Addition to Randomized Controlled Trials? A Critical Examination of Underlying Principles 2018Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations 2009RE: "SHOULD META-ANALYSES OF INTERVENTIONS INCLUDE OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES IN ADDITION TO RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS? A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES"2020Challenges in meta-analyses with observational studies

Cited by

2024Kahoot! Game‐based digital learning platform: A comprehensive meta‐analysis

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