ArticleEmerging themes in epidemiology2005
Assessing observational studies of medical treatments.
Article in Emerging themes in epidemiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Assessment of effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back pain secondary to lumbar central spinal canal stenosis.International journal of medical sciences · 2013Trial
- Sex differences in CRT device implantation rates, efficacy, and complications following implantation: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Osteoporosis therapies: evidence from health-care databases and observational population studies.Calcified tissue international · 2010Review
- Testing bias in clinical databases: methodological considerations.Emerging themes in epidemiology · 2010Article
- Pancreatic proteolytic enzyme therapy compared with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2010Article
- Breaking new ground: challenging existing asthma guidelines.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have assessed the validity of the observational study design by comparing results of studies using this design to results from randomized controlled trials. The present study examined design features of observational studies that could have influenced these comparisons.
methodsTo find at least 4 observational studies that evaluated the same treatment, we reviewed meta-analyses comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials for the assessment of medical treatments. Details critical for interpretation of these studies were abstracted and analyzed qualitatively.
resultsIndividual articles reviewed included 61 observational studies that assessed 10 treatment comparisons evaluated in two studies comparing randomized controlled trials and observational studies. The majority of studies did not report the following information: details of primary and ancillary treatments, outcome definitions, length of follow-up, inclusion/exclusion criteria, patient characteristics relevant to prognosis or treatment response, or assessment of possible confounding. When information was reported, variations in treatment specifics, outcome definition or confounding were identified as possible causes of differences between observational studies and randomized controlled trials, and of heterogeneity in observational studies.
conclusionReporting of observational studies of medical treatments was often inadequate to compare study designs or allow other meaningful interpretation of results. All observational studies should report details of treatment, outcome assessment, patient characteristics, and confounding assessment.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.