A systematic review showed more consideration is needed when conducting nonrandomized studies of interventions

The objective of this study was to evaluate the methodological conduct, reporting, and risk of bias of nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) funded by UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres (NIHR-BRCs). We conducted a systematic review, searching the Medline a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical epidemiology Jg. 117; S. 99 - 108
Hauptverfasser: Dhiman, Paula, Lee, Hopin, Kirtley, Shona, Collins, Gary S.
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: United States Elsevier Inc 01.01.2020
Elsevier Limited
Schlagworte:
Bias
Biomedical research
Data collection
Design
Epidemiology
Estimates
Evaluation
Funding
Guidelines as Topic
Humans
Intervention
Methodology
Missing data
Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods
Nonrandomized
Observational
Regression Analysis
Reporting
Research Design - standards
Research facilities
Risk assessment
Risk of bias
Studies
Systematic review
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Systematic review
Observational
Methodology
Risk of bias
Reporting
Nonrandomized
ISSN:0895-4356, 1878-5921, 1878-5921
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The objective of this study was to evaluate the methodological conduct, reporting, and risk of bias of nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) funded by UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres (NIHR-BRCs). We conducted a systematic review, searching the Medline and Web of Science databases between 2012 and 2018, for NRSIs funded by NIHR-BRCs. Eligible studies were published between April 2012 and December 2017. We selected a contemporary subset of NRSIs published in 2017. We extracted study design, methods for overcoming confounding bias from nonrandomization, analysis methods, and items for assessing risk of bias. Risk of bias was the primary outcome, assessed using Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies–of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Fifty-two NSRI publications were included, of which over half were cohort studies and 29% before-and-after studies. Seventy-seven percent analyzed nonpurposefully collected data. All had serious or critical risk of bias. Regression adjustment was most commonly used to address confounding bias (50%). Few (12%) studies accounted for missing data and 42% reported different numbers of outcomes in their methods and results. Most reviewed NRSIs had serious or critical risk of bias. Although NRSIs can evaluate treatment effects when appropriately conducted, this review shows that their design, analysis, and reporting require more consideration.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:0895-4356
1878-5921
1878-5921
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.027