Suppr超能文献

随机对照研究与非随机对照研究中治疗效果证据的比较。

Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies.

作者信息

Ioannidis J P, Haidich A B, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori S I, Tektonidou M G, Contopoulos-Ioannidis D G, Lau J

机构信息

Division of Clinical Care Research, New England Medical Center, Box 63, 750 Washington St, Boston, MA 02111, USA.

出版信息

JAMA. 2001 Aug 15;286(7):821-30. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.7.821.

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.

摘要

背景

关于非随机研究的结果是否与同一主题的随机对照试验结果一致,存在大量争论。

目的

比较评估医学干预措施的随机研究和非随机研究的结果,并检查可能解释随机研究与非随机研究之间差异的特征。

数据来源

检索了MEDLINE(1966年至2000年3月)、Cochrane图书馆(2000年第3期)以及主要期刊。

研究选择

确定了45个不同的主题,针对这些主题既进行了随机试验(n = 240),也进行了非随机研究(n = 168),并且在二元结局的荟萃分析中对这些研究进行了考量。

数据提取

分别针对随机研究和非随机研究,提取并综合了每个研究组中每位患者的事件数据以及每个荟萃分析中所考虑的每项研究的设计和特征。

数据综合

随机研究和非随机研究的汇总比值比之间观察到非常好的相关性(r = 0.75;P <.001);然而,非随机研究倾向于显示出更大的治疗效果(28比11;P =.009)。仅在随机试验中,研究间异质性很常见(23%),而仅在非随机研究中则非常常见(41%)。两种设计类型的汇总结果在7例(16%)中差异超出偶然。当仅考虑前瞻性研究时,超出偶然的差异不太常见(8%)。在有差异的随机研究和非随机研究之间,还偶尔注意到样本量和发表时间的差异。在28例(62%)中,比值比的自然对数差异至少为50%,在15例(33%)中,非随机研究与随机试验之间的比值比至少相差2倍。

结论

尽管随机试验与非随机研究(特别是前瞻性研究)之间存在良好的相关性,但确实会出现超出偶然的差异,并且治疗效果估计大小的差异非常普遍。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验