Comparison of Pooled Risk Estimates for Adverse Effects from Different Observational Study Designs: Methodological Overview
Open Access
- 20 August 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 8 (8), e71813
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071813
Abstract
A diverse range of study designs (e.g. case-control or cohort) are used in the evaluation of adverse effects. We aimed to ascertain whether the risk estimates from meta-analyses of case-control studies differ from that of other study designs. Searches were carried out in 10 databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, and handsearching key journals and conference proceedings. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from case-control studies could be directly compared with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from other types of observational studies. We included 82 meta-analyses. Pooled estimates of harm from the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped in 78/82 instances (95%). Of the 23 cases of discrepant findings (significant harm identified in meta-analysis of one type of study design, but not with the other study design), 16 (70%) stemmed from significantly elevated pooled estimates from case-control studies. There was associated evidence of funnel plot asymmetry consistent with higher risk estimates from case-control studies. On average, cohort or cross-sectional studies yielded pooled odds ratios 0.94 (95% CI 0.88–1.00) times lower than that from case-control studies. Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that meta-analysis of case-control studies tend to give slightly higher estimates of harm as compared to meta-analyses of other observational studies. However it is impossible to rule out potential confounding from differences in drug dose, duration and populations when comparing between study designs.This publication has 89 references indexed in Scilit:
- Meta-analyses of Adverse Effects Data Derived from Randomised Controlled Trials as Compared to Observational Studies: Methodological OverviewPLoS Medicine, 2011
- Risk of Lymphoma Associated With Combination Anti–Tumor Necrosis Factor and Immunomodulator Therapy for the Treatment of Crohn's Disease: A Meta-AnalysisClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2009
- Long-term use of thiazolidinediones and fractures in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysisCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2009
- Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetryJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2008
- Adverse effects of medical cannabinoids: a systematic reviewCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2008
- Hormone replacement therapy and risk of venous thromboembolism in postmenopausal women: systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ, 2008
- Risk of Hypospadias in Offspring of Women Using Loratadine during PregnancyDrug Safety, 2008
- Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and myocardial infarctions: comparative systematic review of evidence from observational studies and randomised controlled trialsAnnals Of The Rheumatic Diseases, 2007
- Comparison of Effects in Randomized Controlled Trials With Observational Studies in Digestive SurgeryAnnals of Surgery, 2006
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003