Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials
Researchers and organizations often use evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy of a treatment or intervention under ideal conditions. Studies of observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenari...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews H. 4; S. MR000034 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
England
29.04.2014
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| ISSN: | 1469-493X, 1469-493X |
| Online-Zugang: | Weitere Angaben |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Abstract | Researchers and organizations often use evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy of a treatment or intervention under ideal conditions. Studies of observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and modifications of existing designs, including both randomized and observational, are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population.A systematic analysis of study design features, risk of bias, parameter interpretation, and effect size for all types of randomized and non-experimental observational studies is needed to identify specific differences in design types and potential biases. This review summarizes the results of methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of observational studies with randomized trials addressing the same question, as well as methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of different types of observational studies.
To assess the impact of study design (including RCTs versus observational study designs) on the effect measures estimated.To explore methodological variables that might explain any differences identified.To identify gaps in the existing research comparing study designs.
We searched seven electronic databases, from January 1990 to December 2013.Along with MeSH terms and relevant keywords, we used the sensitivity-specificity balanced version of a validated strategy to identify reviews in PubMed, augmented with one term ("review" in article titles) so that it better targeted narrative reviews. No language restrictions were applied.
We examined systematic reviews that were designed as methodological reviews to compare quantitative effect size estimates measuring efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in trials with those tested in observational studies. Comparisons included RCTs versus observational studies (including retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control designs, and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared randomized trials with other studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.
In general, outcome measures included relative risks or rate ratios (RR), odds ratios (OR), hazard ratios (HR). Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the published estimates to see whether there was a relative larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR).Within each identified review, if an estimate comparing results from observational studies with RCTs was not provided, we pooled the estimates for observational studies and RCTs. Then, we estimated the ratio of ratios (risk ratio or odds ratio) for each identified review using observational studies as the reference category. Across all reviews, we synthesized these ratios to get a pooled ROR comparing results from RCTs with results from observational studies.
Our initial search yielded 4406 unique references. Fifteen reviews met our inclusion criteria; 14 of which were included in the quantitative analysis.The included reviews analyzed data from 1583 meta-analyses that covered 228 different medical conditions. The mean number of included studies per paper was 178 (range 19 to 530).Eleven (73%) reviews had low risk of bias for explicit criteria for study selection, nine (60%) were low risk of bias for investigators' agreement for study selection, five (33%) included a complete sample of studies, seven (47%) assessed the risk of bias of their included studies,Seven (47%) reviews controlled for methodological differences between studies,Eight (53%) reviews controlled for heterogeneity among studies, nine (60%) analyzed similar outcome measures, and four (27%) were judged to be at low risk of reporting bias.Our primary quantitative analysis, including 14 reviews, showed that the pooled ROR comparing effects from RCTs with effects from observational studies was 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.22). Of 14 reviews included in this analysis, 11 (79%) found no significant difference between observational studies and RCTs. One review suggested observational studies had larger effects of interest, and two reviews suggested observational studies had smaller effects of interest.Similar to the effect across all included reviews, effects from reviews comparing RCTs with cohort studies had a pooled ROR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21), with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 68%). Three reviews compared effects of RCTs and case-control designs (pooled ROR: 1.11 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.35)).No significant difference in point estimates across heterogeneity, pharmacological intervention, or propensity score adjustment subgroups were noted. No reviews had compared RCTs with observational studies that used two of the most common causal inference methods, instrumental variables and marginal structural models.
Our results across all reviews (pooled ROR 1.08) are very similar to results reported by similarly conducted reviews. As such, we have reached similar conclusions; on average, there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interventions. Factors other than study design per se need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding of how these factors influence study effects might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Researchers and organizations often use evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy of a treatment or intervention under ideal conditions. Studies of observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and modifications of existing designs, including both randomized and observational, are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population.A systematic analysis of study design features, risk of bias, parameter interpretation, and effect size for all types of randomized and non-experimental observational studies is needed to identify specific differences in design types and potential biases. This review summarizes the results of methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of observational studies with randomized trials addressing the same question, as well as methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of different types of observational studies.
To assess the impact of study design (including RCTs versus observational study designs) on the effect measures estimated.To explore methodological variables that might explain any differences identified.To identify gaps in the existing research comparing study designs.
We searched seven electronic databases, from January 1990 to December 2013.Along with MeSH terms and relevant keywords, we used the sensitivity-specificity balanced version of a validated strategy to identify reviews in PubMed, augmented with one term ("review" in article titles) so that it better targeted narrative reviews. No language restrictions were applied.
We examined systematic reviews that were designed as methodological reviews to compare quantitative effect size estimates measuring efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in trials with those tested in observational studies. Comparisons included RCTs versus observational studies (including retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control designs, and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared randomized trials with other studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.
In general, outcome measures included relative risks or rate ratios (RR), odds ratios (OR), hazard ratios (HR). Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the published estimates to see whether there was a relative larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR).Within each identified review, if an estimate comparing results from observational studies with RCTs was not provided, we pooled the estimates for observational studies and RCTs. Then, we estimated the ratio of ratios (risk ratio or odds ratio) for each identified review using observational studies as the reference category. Across all reviews, we synthesized these ratios to get a pooled ROR comparing results from RCTs with results from observational studies.
Our initial search yielded 4406 unique references. Fifteen reviews met our inclusion criteria; 14 of which were included in the quantitative analysis.The included reviews analyzed data from 1583 meta-analyses that covered 228 different medical conditions. The mean number of included studies per paper was 178 (range 19 to 530).Eleven (73%) reviews had low risk of bias for explicit criteria for study selection, nine (60%) were low risk of bias for investigators' agreement for study selection, five (33%) included a complete sample of studies, seven (47%) assessed the risk of bias of their included studies,Seven (47%) reviews controlled for methodological differences between studies,Eight (53%) reviews controlled for heterogeneity among studies, nine (60%) analyzed similar outcome measures, and four (27%) were judged to be at low risk of reporting bias.Our primary quantitative analysis, including 14 reviews, showed that the pooled ROR comparing effects from RCTs with effects from observational studies was 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.22). Of 14 reviews included in this analysis, 11 (79%) found no significant difference between observational studies and RCTs. One review suggested observational studies had larger effects of interest, and two reviews suggested observational studies had smaller effects of interest.Similar to the effect across all included reviews, effects from reviews comparing RCTs with cohort studies had a pooled ROR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21), with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 68%). Three reviews compared effects of RCTs and case-control designs (pooled ROR: 1.11 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.35)).No significant difference in point estimates across heterogeneity, pharmacological intervention, or propensity score adjustment subgroups were noted. No reviews had compared RCTs with observational studies that used two of the most common causal inference methods, instrumental variables and marginal structural models.
Our results across all reviews (pooled ROR 1.08) are very similar to results reported by similarly conducted reviews. As such, we have reached similar conclusions; on average, there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interventions. Factors other than study design per se need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding of how these factors influence study effects might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness. Researchers and organizations often use evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy of a treatment or intervention under ideal conditions. Studies of observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and modifications of existing designs, including both randomized and observational, are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population.A systematic analysis of study design features, risk of bias, parameter interpretation, and effect size for all types of randomized and non-experimental observational studies is needed to identify specific differences in design types and potential biases. This review summarizes the results of methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of observational studies with randomized trials addressing the same question, as well as methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of different types of observational studies.BACKGROUNDResearchers and organizations often use evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy of a treatment or intervention under ideal conditions. Studies of observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and modifications of existing designs, including both randomized and observational, are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population.A systematic analysis of study design features, risk of bias, parameter interpretation, and effect size for all types of randomized and non-experimental observational studies is needed to identify specific differences in design types and potential biases. This review summarizes the results of methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of observational studies with randomized trials addressing the same question, as well as methodological reviews that compare the outcomes of different types of observational studies.To assess the impact of study design (including RCTs versus observational study designs) on the effect measures estimated.To explore methodological variables that might explain any differences identified.To identify gaps in the existing research comparing study designs.OBJECTIVESTo assess the impact of study design (including RCTs versus observational study designs) on the effect measures estimated.To explore methodological variables that might explain any differences identified.To identify gaps in the existing research comparing study designs.We searched seven electronic databases, from January 1990 to December 2013.Along with MeSH terms and relevant keywords, we used the sensitivity-specificity balanced version of a validated strategy to identify reviews in PubMed, augmented with one term ("review" in article titles) so that it better targeted narrative reviews. No language restrictions were applied.SEARCH METHODSWe searched seven electronic databases, from January 1990 to December 2013.Along with MeSH terms and relevant keywords, we used the sensitivity-specificity balanced version of a validated strategy to identify reviews in PubMed, augmented with one term ("review" in article titles) so that it better targeted narrative reviews. No language restrictions were applied.We examined systematic reviews that were designed as methodological reviews to compare quantitative effect size estimates measuring efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in trials with those tested in observational studies. Comparisons included RCTs versus observational studies (including retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control designs, and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared randomized trials with other studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.SELECTION CRITERIAWe examined systematic reviews that were designed as methodological reviews to compare quantitative effect size estimates measuring efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in trials with those tested in observational studies. Comparisons included RCTs versus observational studies (including retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control designs, and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared randomized trials with other studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.In general, outcome measures included relative risks or rate ratios (RR), odds ratios (OR), hazard ratios (HR). Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the published estimates to see whether there was a relative larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR).Within each identified review, if an estimate comparing results from observational studies with RCTs was not provided, we pooled the estimates for observational studies and RCTs. Then, we estimated the ratio of ratios (risk ratio or odds ratio) for each identified review using observational studies as the reference category. Across all reviews, we synthesized these ratios to get a pooled ROR comparing results from RCTs with results from observational studies.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISIn general, outcome measures included relative risks or rate ratios (RR), odds ratios (OR), hazard ratios (HR). Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the published estimates to see whether there was a relative larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR).Within each identified review, if an estimate comparing results from observational studies with RCTs was not provided, we pooled the estimates for observational studies and RCTs. Then, we estimated the ratio of ratios (risk ratio or odds ratio) for each identified review using observational studies as the reference category. Across all reviews, we synthesized these ratios to get a pooled ROR comparing results from RCTs with results from observational studies.Our initial search yielded 4406 unique references. Fifteen reviews met our inclusion criteria; 14 of which were included in the quantitative analysis.The included reviews analyzed data from 1583 meta-analyses that covered 228 different medical conditions. The mean number of included studies per paper was 178 (range 19 to 530).Eleven (73%) reviews had low risk of bias for explicit criteria for study selection, nine (60%) were low risk of bias for investigators' agreement for study selection, five (33%) included a complete sample of studies, seven (47%) assessed the risk of bias of their included studies,Seven (47%) reviews controlled for methodological differences between studies,Eight (53%) reviews controlled for heterogeneity among studies, nine (60%) analyzed similar outcome measures, and four (27%) were judged to be at low risk of reporting bias.Our primary quantitative analysis, including 14 reviews, showed that the pooled ROR comparing effects from RCTs with effects from observational studies was 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.22). Of 14 reviews included in this analysis, 11 (79%) found no significant difference between observational studies and RCTs. One review suggested observational studies had larger effects of interest, and two reviews suggested observational studies had smaller effects of interest.Similar to the effect across all included reviews, effects from reviews comparing RCTs with cohort studies had a pooled ROR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21), with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 68%). Three reviews compared effects of RCTs and case-control designs (pooled ROR: 1.11 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.35)).No significant difference in point estimates across heterogeneity, pharmacological intervention, or propensity score adjustment subgroups were noted. No reviews had compared RCTs with observational studies that used two of the most common causal inference methods, instrumental variables and marginal structural models.MAIN RESULTSOur initial search yielded 4406 unique references. Fifteen reviews met our inclusion criteria; 14 of which were included in the quantitative analysis.The included reviews analyzed data from 1583 meta-analyses that covered 228 different medical conditions. The mean number of included studies per paper was 178 (range 19 to 530).Eleven (73%) reviews had low risk of bias for explicit criteria for study selection, nine (60%) were low risk of bias for investigators' agreement for study selection, five (33%) included a complete sample of studies, seven (47%) assessed the risk of bias of their included studies,Seven (47%) reviews controlled for methodological differences between studies,Eight (53%) reviews controlled for heterogeneity among studies, nine (60%) analyzed similar outcome measures, and four (27%) were judged to be at low risk of reporting bias.Our primary quantitative analysis, including 14 reviews, showed that the pooled ROR comparing effects from RCTs with effects from observational studies was 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.22). Of 14 reviews included in this analysis, 11 (79%) found no significant difference between observational studies and RCTs. One review suggested observational studies had larger effects of interest, and two reviews suggested observational studies had smaller effects of interest.Similar to the effect across all included reviews, effects from reviews comparing RCTs with cohort studies had a pooled ROR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21), with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 68%). Three reviews compared effects of RCTs and case-control designs (pooled ROR: 1.11 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.35)).No significant difference in point estimates across heterogeneity, pharmacological intervention, or propensity score adjustment subgroups were noted. No reviews had compared RCTs with observational studies |
| Author | Anglemyer, Andrew Horvath, Hacsi T Bero, Lisa |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Andrew surname: Anglemyer fullname: Anglemyer, Andrew organization: Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA, 94105 – sequence: 2 givenname: Hacsi T surname: Horvath fullname: Horvath, Hacsi T – sequence: 3 givenname: Lisa surname: Bero fullname: Bero, Lisa |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24782322$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNkN9LwzAQx4NMnJv-CyOPvmw2v5rkUYY6YSKIgm8lba4u0ja1SZX51xtwosdx3zvu872Hm6FJ5ztAaEGyFckyekl4LogSanX_mKVgfNWPJT1Cp2mhl1yzl8m_fopmIbwlTBOiTtCUcqkoo_QU-Q2YJu4qMwD2Y6x8CwGbECClxZ8u7rAvAwwfJjrfmQaHONo9thDcaxdw4vtkPZBx5wP8uV2HB9NZ37qvNMXBmSacoeM6CZwfdI6eb66f1pvl9uH2bn21XVZcMpqqEUqBlYYxqxmUQmpj61IQronQLK8N05IzqVmdU2mrUtSQWzBaC5VDSefo4uduP_j3EUIsWhcqaBrTgR9DQQQljCnBaUIXB3QsW7BFP7jWDPvi90n0Gxw-b7Y |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1111_bcp_15431 crossref_primary_10_1111_wvn_12753 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00590_023_03492_3 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12975_015_0440_8 crossref_primary_10_3102_0034654316687036 crossref_primary_10_2196_33250 crossref_primary_10_1155_2023_2741287 crossref_primary_10_1177_0363546516673615 crossref_primary_10_1080_09687637_2020_1729701 crossref_primary_10_3389_fneur_2017_00299 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40119_015_0045_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s00761_020_00720_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_021_01764_9 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13311_023_01416_x crossref_primary_10_1245_s10434_025_17421_7 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyt_2022_834389 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00167_022_06938_z crossref_primary_10_1038_nrneurol_2015_59 crossref_primary_10_1055_a_2508_8861 crossref_primary_10_1080_17434440_2021_1943361 crossref_primary_10_3390_M1772 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_psychres_2018_06_025 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13018_022_03356_2 crossref_primary_10_3389_fphar_2021_693009 crossref_primary_10_2196_31365 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyt_2022_1033328 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10143_024_02690_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ridd_2023_104452 crossref_primary_10_3109_14767058_2015_1104297 crossref_primary_10_7326_M24_0890 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41391_022_00619_1 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinthera_2017_05_358 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_injury_2017_10_013 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2024_084889 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_currproblcancer_2021_100769 crossref_primary_10_3390_nu14214649 crossref_primary_10_1080_00220388_2017_1327661 crossref_primary_10_2147_OPTH_S366150 crossref_primary_10_1096_fba_2021_00015 crossref_primary_10_1002_mpr_1897 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12885_022_09646_6 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00134_015_3927_6 crossref_primary_10_1038_bjc_2017_275 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm14124157 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_018_0696_7 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_o1229 crossref_primary_10_1038_mp_2015_198 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_020_01471_x crossref_primary_10_1093_burnst_tkaa015 crossref_primary_10_1002_CL2_200 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyt_2019_00258 crossref_primary_10_3389_fonc_2021_719014 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmed_2014_00061 crossref_primary_10_2186_jpr_JPR_D_25_00034 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10654_023_01058_5 crossref_primary_10_1177_03635465211030259 crossref_primary_10_3389_fphys_2017_00873 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00482_016_0118_5 crossref_primary_10_1002_ejp_1875 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_9414_2 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_9414_1 crossref_primary_10_2147_DMSO_S311359 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00520_019_04836_8 crossref_primary_10_2217_fca_15_31 crossref_primary_10_1080_03007995_2017_1402754 crossref_primary_10_1177_0002764220919142 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00228_018_2524_3 crossref_primary_10_1159_000529752 crossref_primary_10_1007_s15012_021_6649_1 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_76709 crossref_primary_10_3390_brainsci11030366 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_spinee_2025_03_002 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_phymed_2020_153390 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_017_0343_z crossref_primary_10_1080_09593985_2019_1615678 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00402_021_03906_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s12561_023_09411_8 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_022_01799_z crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_016_1816_5 crossref_primary_10_1080_02813432_2025_2450376 crossref_primary_10_1111_ijcp_12809 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_2021_069400 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_024_02215_4 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyg_2021_644369 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12630_021_02005_2 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2018_023775 crossref_primary_10_1093_advances_nmac042 crossref_primary_10_2147_TCRM_S364022 crossref_primary_10_1161_STROKEAHA_121_034969 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11892_018_0977_5 crossref_primary_10_1111_resp_12835 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11019_017_9773_2 crossref_primary_10_1007_s43441_021_00346_0 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00402_020_03437_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s10815_021_02125_0 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyt_2019_00079 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_oret_2019_06_001 crossref_primary_10_1002_cpt_857 crossref_primary_10_1111_bcp_14494 crossref_primary_10_2147_POR_S469973 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_025_02589_z crossref_primary_10_1002_jrsm_1648 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmed_2022_965790 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00134_018_5498_9 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12916_021_02176_1 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjebm_2020_111493 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2024_36230 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00103_020_03183_y crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_023_43605_w crossref_primary_10_1016_j_drugpo_2020_102840 crossref_primary_10_1007_s15010_020_01466_9 crossref_primary_10_1111_jebm_12107 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0243894 crossref_primary_10_1177_2167702618815466 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_022_12569_3 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00404_022_06823_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_oraloncology_2021_105620 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_socscimed_2016_07_045 crossref_primary_10_1111_bcp_13438 crossref_primary_10_1038_sj_bdj_2016_257 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jse_2016_01_018 crossref_primary_10_1111_jep_12509 crossref_primary_10_1002_sim_7223 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_diabet_2020_09_006 crossref_primary_10_3389_fonc_2017_00187 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40496_022_00307_y crossref_primary_10_1515_reveh_2023_0072 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2023_073232 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyg_2022_1080740 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_n1864 crossref_primary_10_1155_2022_2626645 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13054_020_03382_8 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyt_2020_00390 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cmi_2020_10_036 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_066491 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12887_017_0908_7 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12630_015_0542_5 crossref_primary_10_1111_bcp_14237 crossref_primary_10_1080_17441692_2015_1016446 crossref_primary_10_1111_iwj_12566 crossref_primary_10_1080_01443615_2024_2444496 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00701_020_04264_2 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_021_05604_y crossref_primary_10_1111_cea_14311 crossref_primary_10_1111_phc3_12352 crossref_primary_10_1136_archdischild_2018_315848 crossref_primary_10_1177_15347354251342739 crossref_primary_10_1111_ajes_12539 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_55825 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_019_0811_z crossref_primary_10_1186_s13014_022_02044_z |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1469-493X |
| ExternalDocumentID | 24782322 |
| Genre | Comparative Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | --- 53G 5GY 7PX 9HA ABJNI ACGFO ACGFS AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AYR CGR CUY CVF D7G ECM EIF HYE NPM OEC OK1 P2P RWY WOW ZYTZH 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4732-c4a588ed7a33d93eb579adfb514915936fa39743793f627dcb5fe6dea99586eb2 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 435 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000335885200036&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1469-493X |
| IngestDate | Thu Jul 10 18:17:56 EDT 2025 Wed Jul 30 01:46:32 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 4 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4732-c4a588ed7a33d93eb579adfb514915936fa39743793f627dcb5fe6dea99586eb2 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-4 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/8191367 |
| PMID | 24782322 |
| PQID | 1521338542 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1521338542 pubmed_primary_24782322 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2014-04-29 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2014-04-29 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 04 year: 2014 text: 2014-04-29 day: 29 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | Cochrane database of systematic reviews |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Cochrane Database Syst Rev |
| PublicationYear | 2014 |
| References | 38174786 - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 4;1:MR000034. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub3. |
| References_xml | – reference: 38174786 - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 4;1:MR000034. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub3. |
| SSID | ssj0039118 |
| Score | 2.6108594 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | Researchers and organizations often use evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy of a treatment or intervention under ideal... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | MR000034 |
| SubjectTerms | Humans Meta-Analysis as Topic Observational Studies as Topic Outcome Assessment, Health Care - methods Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic |
| Title | Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24782322 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1521338542 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000335885200036&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV07T8MwELaAIsTC-1FeMhJraGLHiT0hhKi6tOoAUrbIjm3RgaSQloFfz9lJ2gkJicVSpNiK7cvd57vzfQjdRQmxkWE6MDSKg5gRGSgRqkBYBuBUA0BOlCebSCcTnmVi2jrc6jatstOJXlHrqnA-8oGzM3CcYjF5mH8EjjXKRVdbCo1N1KMAZZxUp9kqikDhR-bN7SLHpEaz7oZwSAaR4wDnjN-PPeMajd30ye8w05ub4f5_P_QA7bVAEz82knGINkx5hHbGbSj9GFWjVeYXrpYLGNvUWPoQsNHYuWdxpVYuWxjJF6LF2md81LjLXW_eXLxVtVn3npUYTKCu3mff8OSJQeoT9Dp8fnkaBS37QlDEKSXQSsa50amkVAtqFEuF1FYBwhKR4wG0ErCMK2dIbUJSXShmTaKNFILxBA7sp2irrEpzjnBRAEyznIWGqzgxoSSKUOsqzRGVylT10W23lDlItwtZyNJUyzpfL2YfnTX7kc-bMhw5iQHdgD66-EPvS7QLSMen3BBxhXoW5m2u0XbxtZjVnzdebKCdTMc_eTPONg |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Healthcare+outcomes+assessed+with+observational+study+designs+compared+with+those+assessed+in+randomized+trials&rft.jtitle=Cochrane+database+of+systematic+reviews&rft.au=Anglemyer%2C+Andrew&rft.au=Horvath%2C+Hacsi+T&rft.au=Bero%2C+Lisa&rft.date=2014-04-29&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=MR000034&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000034.pub2&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F24782322&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F24782322&rft.externalDocID=24782322 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |