Comparison of treatment effect estimates from prospective nonrandomized studies with propensity score analysis and randomized controlled trials of surgical procedures

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 259, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 18-25

  Lonjon, Guillaume ^a,b   Boutron, Isabelle ^a,c,d,e   Trinquart, Ludovic ^a,c,d,e   Ahmad, Nizar ^a,c   Aim, Florence ^a,b   Nizard, Rémy ^b   Ravaud, Philippe ^a,c,d,e,f  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b HÔPITAL LARIBOISIÈRE   (France)

^c HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

^d UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^e French Cochrane Centre   (France)

^f Mailman School of Public Health ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness research; Meta epidemiological study; Nonrandomized study; Propensity score; Randomized controlled trial

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; RISK; STUDY DESIGN; SURGERY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

HUMANS; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84891629707     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000256     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al. No surgical innovationwithout evaluation: The IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105-1112.
2. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet. 2009;374:1097-1104.
3. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet. 2009;374:1089-1096.
4. Boutron I,Moher D, Altman DG, et al. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:295-309.
5. Commitee on Comparative Research Prioritization. Institute of Medicine Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research.Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
6. McCulloch P, Taylor I, SasakoM, et al. Randomised trials in surgery: Problems and possible solutions. BMJ. 2002;324:1448-1451.
7. Patsopoulos NA. A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13:217-224.
8. Kunz LM, Yeh RW, Normand S-LT. Comparative effectiveness research: Does one size fit all? Stat Med. 2012;31:3062-3065.
9. Hemmila MR, Birkmeyer NJ, Arbabi S, et al. Introduction to propensity scores: A case study on the comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. Arch Surg. 2010;145:939-945.
10. Cook EF, Goldman L. Performance of tests of significance based on stratification by a multivariate confounder score or by a propensity score. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:317-324.
11. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
12. Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT, et al. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity scorewhen the number of events is lowand there aremultiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:280-287.
13. Kuss O, von Salviati B, Börgermann J. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-Analysis of propensity score analyses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140:829-835.
14. Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: A systematic review and suggestions for improvement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:1128-1135.
15. Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, et al. Video-Assisted thoracic surgery versus open thoracotomy for non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-Analysis of propensity score-matched patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;16:244-249.
16. Tleyjeh IM, Kashour T, Zimmerman V, et al. The role of valve surgery in infective endocarditis management: A systematic review of observational studies that included propensity score analysis. Am Heart J. 2008;156:901-909.
17. Ioannidis JPA, Haidich A-B, Pappa M, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001;286:821-830.
18. Concato J, Lawler EV, Lew RA, et al. Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Med. 2010;123:e16-e23.
19. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1878-1886.
20. Shikata S, Nakayama T, Noguchi Y, et al. Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery. Ann Surg. 2006;244:668-676.
21. Papanikolaou PN, Christidi GD, Ioannidis JPA. Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies. CMAJ. 2006;174:635-641.
22. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii-x, 1-173.
23. Dahabreh IJ, Sheldrick RC, Paulus JK, et al. Do observational studies using propensity scoremethods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1893-1901.
24. Kuss O, Legler T, Börgermann J. Treatments effects from randomized trials and propensity score analyseswere similar in similar populations in an example from cardiac surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1076-1084.
25. Patsopoulos NA, Ioannidis JP. The use of older studies in meta-Analyses of medical interventions: A survey. Open Med. 2009;3:e62-e68.
26. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
27. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: Meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336:601-605.
28. Savovíc J, Jones HE, Altman DG, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:429-438.
29. Di Pietrantonj C. Four-fold table cell frequencies imputation in meta analysis. Stat Med. 2006;25:2299-2322.
30. Sweeting MJ, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-Analysis of sparse data. Stat Med. 2004;23:1351-1375.
31. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-Analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177-188.
32. Sterne JAC, Jüni P, Schulz KF, et al. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in "meta-epidemiological' research. Stat Med. 2002;21:1513-1524.
33. Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: The difference between two estimates. BMJ. 2003;326:219.
34. Golder S, Loke YK, Bland M. Meta-Analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: Methodological overview. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001026.
35. Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:493-501.
36. Dechartres A, Boutron I, Trinquart L, et al. Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: Evidence from a meta-epidemiologic study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:39-51.
37. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: A Monte Carlo study. Stat Med. 2007;26:734-753.
38. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, et al. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:1149-1156.
39. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:757-763.