Meta-analyses of Adverse Effects Data Derived from Randomised Controlled Trials as Compared to Observational Studies: Methodological Overview
Open Access
- 3 May 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLoS Medicine
- Vol. 8 (5), e1001026
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001026
Abstract
There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies. Searches were carried out in ten databases in addition to reference checking, contacting experts, citation searches, and hand-searching key journals, conference proceedings, and Web sites. Studies were included where a pooled relative measure of an adverse effect (odds ratio or risk ratio) from RCTs could be directly compared, using the ratio of odds ratios, with the pooled estimate for the same adverse effect arising from observational studies. Nineteen studies, yielding 58 meta-analyses, were identified for inclusion. The pooled ratio of odds ratios of RCTs compared to observational studies was estimated to be 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.15). There was less discrepancy with larger studies. The symmetric funnel plot suggests that there is no consistent difference between risk estimates from meta-analysis of RCT data and those from meta-analysis of observational studies. In almost all instances, the estimates of harm from meta-analyses of the different study designs had 95% confidence intervals that overlapped (54/58, 93%). In terms of statistical significance, in nearly two-thirds (37/58, 64%), the results agreed (both studies showing a significant increase or significant decrease or both showing no significant difference). In only one meta-analysis about one adverse effect was there opposing statistical significance. Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types. Please see later in the article for the Editors' SummaryThis publication has 130 references indexed in Scilit:
- 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
- Information about ADRs explored by pharmacovigilance approaches: a qualitative review of studies on antibiotics, SSRIs and NSAIDsBMC Clinical Pharmacology, 2009
- 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
- Conjugated Equine Estrogens and Breast Cancer Risk in the Women's Health Initiative Clinical Trial and Observational StudyAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2008
- Observational Research, Randomised Trials, and Two Views of Medical SciencePLoS Medicine, 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
- Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approachBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2007
- Comparison of Effects in Randomized Controlled Trials With Observational Studies in Digestive SurgeryAnnals of Surgery, 2006
- Getting It Right: Being Smarter about Clinical TrialsPLoS Medicine, 2006