SynthesisScientific reports2021
Systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 5 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, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Pain Catastrophizing and Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.Pain management nursing : official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses · 2026Pooled it
- Adipose- and bone marrow-derived stromal cells reduce pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis but do not substantially improve knee functionality: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 due to SARS-CoV-2: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Synthesis methods used to combine observational studies and randomised trials in published meta-analyses.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Open vs Endoscopic Surgical Treatment for Haglund Deformity: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Evaluating the efficacy of mind maps and micro-videos in postoperative care education for lung cancer patients.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The limited availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in nephrology undermines causal inferences in meta-analyses. Systematic reviews of observational studies have grown more common under such circumstances. We conducted systematic reviews of all comparative observational studies in nephrology from 2006 to 2016 to assess the trends in the past decade. We then focused on the meta-analyses combining observational studies and RCTs to evaluate the systematic differences in effect estimates between study designs using two statistical methods: by estimating the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) of the pooled OR obtained from observational studies versus those from RCTs and by examining the discrepancies in their statistical significance. The number of systematic reviews of observational studies in nephrology had grown by 11.7-fold in the past decade. Among 56 records combining observational studies and RCTs, ROR suggested that the estimates between study designs agreed well (ROR 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.23). However, almost half of the reviews led to discrepant interpretations in terms of statistical significance. In conclusion, the findings based on ROR might encourage researchers to justify the inclusion of observational studies in meta-analyses. However, caution is needed, as the interpretations based on statistical significance were less concordant than those based on ROR.
Indexed as
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.