Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies
- PMID: 11497536
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.7.821
Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies
Abstract
Context: There is substantial debate about whether the results of nonrandomized studies are consistent with the results of randomized controlled trials on the same topic.
Objectives: To compare results of randomized and nonrandomized studies that evaluated medical interventions and to examine characteristics that may explain discrepancies between randomized and nonrandomized studies.
Data sources: MEDLINE (1966-March 2000), the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2000), and major journals were searched.
Study selection: Forty-five diverse topics were identified for which both randomized trials (n = 240) and nonrandomized studies (n = 168) had been performed and had been considered in meta-analyses of binary outcomes.
Data extraction: Data on events per patient in each study arm and design and characteristics of each study considered in each meta-analysis were extracted and synthesized separately for randomized and nonrandomized studies.
Data synthesis: Very good correlation was observed between the summary odds ratios of randomized and nonrandomized studies (r = 0.75; P<.001); however, nonrandomized studies tended to show larger treatment effects (28 vs 11; P =.009). Between-study heterogeneity was frequent among randomized trials alone (23%) and very frequent among nonrandomized studies alone (41%). The summary results of the 2 types of designs differed beyond chance in 7 cases (16%). Discrepancies beyond chance were less common when only prospective studies were considered (8%). Occasional differences in sample size and timing of publication were also noted between discrepant randomized and nonrandomized studies. In 28 cases (62%), the natural logarithm of the odds ratio differed by at least 50%, and in 15 cases (33%), the odds ratio varied at least 2-fold between nonrandomized studies and randomized trials.
Conclusions: Despite good correlation between randomized trials and nonrandomized studies-in particular, prospective studies-discrepancies beyond chance do occur and differences in estimated magnitude of treatment effect are very common.
Comment in
-
Using meta-analysis to answer clinical questions.JAMA. 2001 Dec 5;286(21):2669; author reply 2669-70. JAMA. 2001. PMID: 11730436 No abstract available.
-
Using meta-analysis to answer clinical questions.JAMA. 2001 Dec 5;286(21):2669-70. JAMA. 2001. PMID: 11730437 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies of Pharmacological Interventions: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Sep 3;7(9):e2436230. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.36230. JAMA Netw Open. 2024. PMID: 39331390 Free PMC article.
-
Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: evidence from a meta-epidemiologic study.Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 5;155(1):39-51. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-1-201107050-00006. Ann Intern Med. 2011. PMID: 21727292
-
Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies.CMAJ. 2006 Feb 28;174(5):635-41. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050873. CMAJ. 2006. PMID: 16505459 Free PMC article.
-
Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses.Stat Med. 2000 Jul 15;19(13):1707-28. doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1707::aid-sim491>3.0.co;2-p. Stat Med. 2000. PMID: 10861773 Review.
-
Examining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: comparing results of randomized trials and nonrandomized studies of interventions for low back pain.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Feb 1;33(3):339-48. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816233b5. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008. PMID: 18303468 Review.
Cited by
-
Efficacy of Colchicine in the Treatment of COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.J Clin Med. 2022 May 6;11(9):2615. doi: 10.3390/jcm11092615. J Clin Med. 2022. PMID: 35566737 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Timing and Characteristics of Cumulative Evidence Available on Novel Therapeutic Agents Receiving Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval.Milbank Q. 2017 Jun;95(2):261-290. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12261. Milbank Q. 2017. PMID: 28589600 Free PMC article.
-
The effect of teeth extraction for orthodontic treatment on the upper airway: a systematic review.Sleep Breath. 2015 May;19(2):441-51. doi: 10.1007/s11325-015-1122-1. Epub 2015 Jan 28. Sleep Breath. 2015. PMID: 25628011
-
Efficacy and safety of intravenous valproate for status epilepticus: a systematic review.CNS Drugs. 2014 Jul;28(7):623-39. doi: 10.1007/s40263-014-0167-1. CNS Drugs. 2014. PMID: 24806973 Free PMC article.
-
Buying health: assessing the impact of a consumer-side vegetable subsidy on purchasing, consumption and waste.Public Health Nutr. 2016 Feb;19(3):520-9. doi: 10.1017/S1368980015001469. Epub 2015 Jun 9. Public Health Nutr. 2016. PMID: 26054549 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical