Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27769172›Full record

ArticleBMC anesthesiology2016

Randomized controlled trials vs. observational studies: why not just live together?

David Faraoni, Simon Thomas Schaefer

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Do Common Beans (Nutrients · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pain and disability after first-time spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2019
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David FaraoniDepartment of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Simon Thomas SchaeferDepartment of Anesthesiology, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, München, Germany. simon.schaefer@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7289-6000

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for clinical research, thus having a high impact on clinical guidelines and our daily patients' care. However, various treatment strategies which we consider "evidence based" have never been subject to a prospective RCT, as we would rate it unethical to withheld an established treatment to individuals in an placebo controlled trial.In a recent BMC Anesthesiology publication, Trentino et al. analyzed the usefulness of observational studies in assessing benefit and risk of different transfusion strategies. The authors nicely reviewed and summarized similarities and differences, advantages and limitations, between different study types frequently used in transfusion medicine. In this interesting article, the authors conclude, that 'when comparing the results of observational studies with RCTs assessing transfusion outcomes, it is important that one consider not only the study method, but also the key elements of the study design'. Thus, in this commentary we now discuss the pro's and con's of different study types, even irrespective of transfusion medicine.

Indexed as

Research DesignBlood TransfusionEvidence-Based MedicineHumansObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicGood clinical practiceMetaanalysisObservational studiesRandomized controlled trialsStudy planning

Identifiers

PMID27769172
PMCPMC5073487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.