Joint incorporation of randomised and observational evidence in estimating treatment effects

被引:6
作者
Ferguson, John [1 ]
Alvarez-Iglesias, Alberto [1 ]
Newell, John [1 ,2 ]
Hinde, John [2 ]
O'Donnell, Martin [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Univ Ireland Galway, HRB Clin Res Facil, Univ Rd, Galway, Ireland
[2] Natl Univ Ireland Galway, Sch Math Stat & Appl Math, Galway, Ireland
基金
欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
Observational study; randomised trial; meta-analysis; root mean square error; parametric bootstrap; METAANALYSIS; BIAS; RISK; ADJUSTMENT; REGRESSION; TRIALS; MODELS;
D O I
10.1177/0962280217720854
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
In evidence-based medicine, randomised trials are regarded as a gold standard in estimating relative treatment effects. Nevertheless, a potential gain in precision is forfeited by ignoring observational evidence. We describe a simple estimator that combines treatment estimates from randomised and observational data and investigate its properties by simulation. We show that a substantial gain in estimation accuracy, compared with the estimator based solely on the randomised trial, is possible when the observational evidence has low bias and standard error. In the contrasting scenario where the observational evidence is inaccurate, the estimator automatically discounts its contribution to the estimated treatment effect. Meta-analysis extensions, combining estimators from multiple observational studies and randomised trials, are also explored.
引用
收藏
页码:235 / 247
页数:13
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1997, CAMBRIDGE SERIES STA
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2016, LANCET, DOI DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01225-8
  • [3] A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials.
    Benson, K
    Hartz, AJ
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2000, 342 (25) : 1878 - 1886
  • [4] Black N, 1996, BRIT MED J, V312, P1215
  • [5] A most stubborn bias: no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies
    Bosco, Jaclyn L. F.
    Silliman, Rebecca A.
    Thwin, Soe Soe
    Geiger, Ann M.
    Buist, Diana S. M.
    Prout, Marianne N.
    Yood, Marianne Ulcickas
    Haque, Reina
    Wei, Feifei
    Lash, Timothy L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 63 (01) : 64 - 74
  • [6] A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis
    Brockwell, SE
    Gordon, IR
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2001, 20 (06) : 825 - 840
  • [7] Canty A.Ripley., 2016, BOOT BOOTSTRAP R S P
  • [8] Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.
    Concato, J
    Shah, N
    Horwitz, RI
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2000, 342 (25) : 1887 - 1892
  • [9] METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS
    DERSIMONIAN, R
    LAIRD, N
    [J]. CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03): : 177 - 188
  • [10] INCORPORATING VARIATIONS IN THE QUALITY OF INDIVIDUAL RANDOMIZED TRIALS INTO METAANALYSIS
    DETSKY, AS
    NAYLOR, CD
    OROURKE, K
    MCGEER, AJ
    LABBE, KA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1992, 45 (03) : 255 - 265