JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH  August 2001

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH August 2001

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Randomized versus non-randomized studies

From:

"Doggett, David" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Doggett, David

Date:

Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:32:19 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (119 lines)

This question highlights the difference between evidence-based medicine (as
it has been defined and practiced in systematic reviews) and technology
assessment.  EBM meta-analyses and systematic reviews have confined
themselves almost exclusively to RCTs.  Thus, the topics covered by EBM are
limited to questions addressed by RCTs.  Technology assessment (TA) does not
have that luxury.  We must present decision makers with the current state of
knowledge, regardless of the source; although, it is essential to critically
analyze the reliability of the data.

I recently gave a talk on meta-analysis of uncontrolled studies at the
annual meeting of the International Society for Technology Assessment in
Health Care that was here in Philadelphia in June.  Our approach has been to
use an evidence hierarchy only to guide our literature searches and
inclusion criteria, not to assign points by which to weight evidence.  Thus,
if there are a number of double-blind RCTs, we do a meta-analysis of those.
Lesser designs (unblinded RCT, other controlled studies, uncontrolled
studies) will then only be looked at for any additional evidence they may
provide, such as on special patient groups, prognostic factors, etc.  But if
there are no dbRCTs, we use whatever there is on the next level down the
evidence hierarchy.

In addition to the Ioannidis article cited by Sontheimer, there are other
interesting articles on randomized versus nonrandomized studies.  One is
"Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of
Research Designs"
Concato J, Sha N and Horwitz RI, N Engl J Med, 2000, 342:1887-92.  This
study found little difference in effect sizes in 55 RCTs and 44 controlled
studies of five different medical topics.

On the other hand, another study, "Assignment Methods in Experimentation:
When Do Nonrandomized Experiments Approximate Answers From Randomized
Experiments?" Heinsman DT and Shadish WR, Psych Meth, 1995, 1:154-69, found
substantial differences in effect sizes in 51 RCTs vs. 47 controlled trials
of four topics in education research.  These two contrasting findings show
that the problem is topic specific.  Furthermore, these latter authors went
on to do multiple regression analysis of various study design and reporting
variables in the studies.  That is, they correlated the study variables to
the effect size.  What they found was that randomization was seventh in the
top ten ranking of study variables affecting the effect size.  Knowing these
correlation coiefficeints, they were then able to adjust the study results
for these variables.  After adjustment there was little or no difference in
the effect sizes of the studies.

Sometimes there are not any controlled trials, only uncontrolled case
series.  Then it is necessary to go to the literature and synthesize a
historical control.  This is also good practice for assessing the validity
of active controls in RCTs without a no-treatment group.  This procedure is
problematic and has been examined in the study "Randomized versus Historical
Controls for Clinical Trials" Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr; Am J Med,
1982, 72:233-40.  These authors found that using historical controls
frequently exagerates the effect size.  While treatment group results were
similar regardless of the comparison design, historical controls usually
fared worse than parallel controls, thus accounting for the exageration in
effect size.  Because of this potential exageration, small or modest effect
sizes found with historical controls are not very reliable; however, we have
seen some situations where the effect size with historical controls was so
large and striking that the findings could not be ignored, and in fact were
strong evidence that there was no equipoise, and an RCT might be unethical.

This raises a point that has always puzzled me.  RCTs are only considered
ethical if there is equipoise.  But what can the evidence be for equipoise?
EBM only recognizes RCTs as valid evidence.  As far as I know, EBM is silent
on what the evidence must be for equipoise.  Any thoughts anyone?

David L. Doggett, Ph.D.
Senior Medical Research Analyst
Health Technology Assessment and Information Services
ECRI, a non-profit health services research organization
5200 Butler Pike
Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania 19462, U.S.A.
Phone: (610) 825-6000 x5509
FAX: (610) 834-1275
http://www.ecri.org
e-mail: [log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: Sontheimer, Daniel MD [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 8:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject:


I thought someone might have started kicking this one around, particularly
with all the recent discussion on evidence grading.   From JAMA, 8/15/2001:

Ioannidis, J et al.  "Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in
Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies"
the authors state:
"Although we perused several hundreds of meta-anlyses, the vast majority
regarded the randomized design as a prerequisite for eligibility and most of
them did not even cite the nonrandomized studies.  This is unfair for
epidemiological research that may offer some complementary insights to those
provided by randomized trials.  We propose that future systematic reviews
and meta analyses should pay more attention to the available randomized
data.  It would be wrong to reduce the efforts to promote randomized trials
so as to obtain easy answers from nonrandomized designs.  However,
nonrandomized evidence may also be useful and may be helpful in the
interpretation of randomized results."

I can see their point, but have a little trouble with using the term unfair.
Limiting to randomized data provides a uniform framework for building a
systematic review or meta-analysis.  There is something to be said for
keeping it simple.  Perhaps, citing of nonrandomized trials that are
discrepant would be helpful.  Any other thoughts?

Dan Sontheimer
Assoc. Director Spartanburg Family Medicine Residency
Spartanburg, SC USA

DISCLAIMER:  The information in this message is confidential and may be
legally privileged.  It is intended solely for the addressee.  Access to
this message by anyone else is unauthorized.  If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any
action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be
unlawful.  Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this
message in error.  Thank you.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager