Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 11;20(1):174.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02369-2.

Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research: a meta-epidemiological study

Nils Bröckelmann  1 , Sara Balduzzi  2 , Louisa Harms  1 , Jessica Beyerbach  1 , Maria Petropoulou  2 , Charlotte Kubiak  1 , Martin Wolkewitz  2 , Joerg J Meerpohl  1   3 , Lukas Schwingshackl  4
Affiliations

Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research: a meta-epidemiological study

Nils Bröckelmann et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies are the most common study design types used to assess the treatment effects of medical interventions. To evaluate the agreement of effect estimates between bodies of evidence (BoE) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies and to identify factors associated with disagreement.

Methods: Systematic reviews were published in the 13 medical journals with the highest impact factor identified through a MEDLINE search. BoE-pairs from RCTs and cohort studies with the same medical research question were included. We rated the similarity of PI/ECO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcome) between BoE from RCTs and cohort studies. The agreement of effect estimates across BoE was analyzed by pooling ratio of ratios (RoR) for binary outcomes and difference of mean differences for continuous outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses to explore factors associated with disagreements.

Results: One hundred twenty-nine BoE pairs from 64 systematic reviews were included. PI/ECO-similarity degree was moderate: two BoE pairs were rated as "more or less identical"; 90 were rated as "similar but not identical" and 37 as only "broadly similar". For binary outcomes, the pooled RoR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.97-1.11) with considerable statistical heterogeneity. For continuous outcomes, differences were small. In subgroup analyses, degree of PI/ECO-similarity, type of intervention, and type of outcome, the pooled RoR indicated that on average, differences between both BoE were small. Subgroup analysis by degree of PI/ECO-similarity revealed high statistical heterogeneity and wide prediction intervals across PI/ECO-dissimilar BoE pairs.

Conclusions: On average, the pooled effect estimates between RCTs and cohort studies did not differ. Statistical heterogeneity and wide prediction intervals were mainly driven by PI/ECO-dissimilarities (i.e., clinical heterogeneity) and cohort studies. The potential influence of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence on differences of effect estimates between RCTs and cohort studies needs to be explored in upcoming meta-epidemiological studies.

Keywords: Agreement of effect estimates; Cohort studies; Meta-epidemiological study; Randomized controlled trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Forest plot for binary outcomes, pooled ratio of ratios (RoR) for bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials vs. cohort studies stratified by type of effect measure. CSs cohort studies, DDP-4 dipeptidyl peptidase 4, DHA docosahexaenoic acid, EPA eicosapentaenoic acid, HR hazard ratio, NSTE-ACS= non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome, OR odds ratio, RCTs randomized controlled trials, RHR ratio of hazard ratios, ROR ratio of odds ratios, RR risk ratio, RRR ratio of risk ratios, SGLT-2 sodium glucose transporter 2
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot for continuous outcomes, pooled difference of mean differences (DMD) for bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials vs. cohort studies. CSs cohort studies, DMD difference of mean differences, MD mean difference, RCTs randomized controlled trials
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot for binary outcomes, pooled ratio of ratios (RoR) for bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials vs. cohort studies stratified by overall PI/ECO*-similarity degree. *PI/ECO population, intervention/exposure, comparator, outcome, CSs cohort studies, DDP-4 dipeptidyl peptidase 4, DHA docosahexaenoic acid, EPA eicosapentaenoic acid, HR hazard ratio, NSTE-ACS non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome, OR odds ratio, RCTs randomized controlled trials, RHR ratio of hazard ratios, ROR ratio of odds ratios, RR risk ratio; RRR ratio of risk ratios, SGLT-2 sodium glucose transporter 2
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016;21(4):125. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence Working Group. Howick J, Chalmers I. In: The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Phillips B, Thornton H, Goddard O, Hodgkinson M, editors. City of Oxford (UK): Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; 2011.
    1. Kabisch M, Ruckes C, Seibert-Grafe M, Blettner M. Randomized controlled trials: part 17 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108(39):663–668. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia (US): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
    1. Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells GA, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2019. Including non-randomized studies on intervention effects; pp. 595–620.

Publication types