• Login
    View Item 
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • View Item
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of UMB Digital ArchiveCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmaceuticals assessed in observational studies compared with randomized controlled trials.

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Author
    Hong, Yoon Duk
    Jansen, Jeroen P
    Guerino, John
    Berger, Marc L
    Crown, William
    Goettsch, Wim G
    Mullins, C Daniel
    Willke, Richard J
    Orsini, Lucinda S
    Date
    2021-12-06
    Journal
    BMC Medicine
    Publisher
    Springer Nature
    Type
    Article
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    See at
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02176-1
    Abstract
    Background: There have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects. Results: Thirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions. Conclusions: Overall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.
    Rights/Terms
    © 2021. The Author(s).
    Keyword
    Observational data
    Pharmaceuticals
    Real-world evidence
    Identifier to cite or link to this item
    http://hdl.handle.net/10713/17336
    ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
    10.1186/s12916-021-02176-1
    Scopus Count
    Collections
    UMB Open Access Articles

    entitlement

    Related articles

    • Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials.
    • Authors: Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L
    • Issue date: 2014 Apr 29
    • Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.
    • Authors: Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, Ferroni E, Al-Ansary LA, Bawazeer GA, van Driel ML, Jones MA, Thorning S, Beller EM, Clark J, Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Conly JM
    • Issue date: 2020 Nov 20
    • The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    • Authors: Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W
    • Issue date: 2020 Nov
    • Authors: Jones WS, Schmit KM, Vemulapalli S, Subherwal S, Patel MR, Hasselblad V, Heidenfelder BL, Chobot MM, Posey R, Wing L, Sanders GD, Dolor RJ
    • Issue date: 2013 May
    • Agreement between study designs: a systematic review comparing observational studies and randomized trials of surgical treatments for necrotizing enterocolitis.
    • Authors: van Heesewijk AE, Rush ML, Schmidt B, Kirpalani H, DeMauro SB
    • Issue date: 2020 Jun
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2022)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Policies | Contact Us | UMB Health Sciences & Human Services Library
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.