Department of Statistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Stat Med. 2011 Nov 10;30(25):2986-3009. doi: 10.1002/sim.4339. Epub 2011 Sep 4.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the traditional gold standard evidence for medical decision-making. However, protocols that limit enrollment eligibility introduce selection error that severely limits a RCT's applicability to a wide range of patients. Conversely, high quality observational data can be representative of entire populations, but freedom to choose treatment can bias estimators based on this data. Cross design synthesis (CDS) is an approach to combining both RCT and observational data in a single analysis that capitalizes on the RCT's strong internal validity and the observational study's strong external validity. We proposed and assessed a simple estimator of effect size based on the CDS approach. We evaluated its properties within a formal framework of causal estimation and compared our estimator with more traditional estimators based on single sources of evidence. We show that under ideal conditions the simple CDS estimator is unbiased whenever the observational data-based estimators' treatment selection error is constant across those who are and are not eligible for RCT participation. Whereas this assumption may not often hold in practice, assumptions required for the unbiasedness of usual single-source estimators may also be implausible. We show that, under some reasonable data assumptions, our simple CDS estimator has smaller bias and better coverage than commonly used estimates based on randomized or observational studies alone.
随机对照试验(RCT)是医学决策的传统金标准证据。然而,限制纳入资格的方案会引入选择误差,严重限制 RCT 对广泛患者群体的适用性。相反,高质量的观察性数据可以代表整个人群,但基于该数据的治疗选择自由会使估计值产生偏差。交叉设计综合(CDS)是一种将 RCT 和观察性数据在单个分析中结合起来的方法,利用 RCT 的强内部有效性和观察性研究的强外部有效性。我们提出并评估了一种基于 CDS 方法的简单效应大小估计量。我们在因果估计的正式框架内评估了其性质,并将我们的估计量与基于单一证据来源的更传统的估计量进行了比较。我们表明,在理想条件下,只要观察性数据为基础的估计量的治疗选择误差在符合和不符合 RCT 纳入标准的人群中保持不变,那么简单的 CDS 估计量就是无偏的。然而,在实践中,这种假设可能并不总是成立,而通常用于基于随机或观察性研究的单一来源估计量的无偏性假设也可能不切实际。我们表明,在一些合理的数据假设下,我们的简单 CDS 估计量比单独基于随机或观察性研究的常用估计量具有更小的偏差和更好的覆盖范围。