Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Meta-analyses frequently pooled different study types together: a meta-epidemiological study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Meta-analyses frequently pooled different study types together: a meta-epidemiological study
Do you wish to request the book?
Meta-analyses frequently pooled different study types together: a meta-epidemiological study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Meta-analyses frequently pooled different study types together: a meta-epidemiological study
2020
Overview
To evaluate the characteristics of therapeutic meta-analyses including both observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), how these studies were combined and whether there were differences in treatment effects.
Meta-epidemiological study of meta-analyses, including both observational studies and RCTs. We searched MEDLINE for the five leading journals of each medical category according to Journal Citation Reports) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 2014 to 2018 for eligible meta-analyses and extracted how observational studies and RCTs were combined and results for each study.
Of the 102 included meta-analyses, observational studies and RCTs were combined together without a subgroup analysis in 39 (38%) and with subgroup analysis in 15 (15%); they were pooled separately for the same outcome in 11 (11%) and not for the same outcome in 9 (9%). In 28 (27%) meta-analyses, only RCTs were combined, with a qualitative description of observational studies. Treatment effect estimates did not differ between observational studies and RCTs (ratio of estimates = 0.98 [95% confidence interval 0.80–1.21]), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 59%).
Many meta-analyses, including both observational studies and RCTs pool results from both study types. Although treatment effects did not differ between them on average, we identified situations for which estimates differed.
•Many meta-analyses combined observational studies with RCTs in meta-analysis. Overall, there was no difference in effects between RCTs and observational studies.•Heterogeneity across topics was substantial.•There were a few situations with significant differences between both study types.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited,Elsevier
