Comparison of Effects in Randomized Controlled Trials With Observational Studies in Digestive Surgery

作者
Satoru Shikata,Takeo Nakayama,Yoshinori Noguchi,Yoshinori Taji,Hisakazu Yamagishi
出处
期刊:Annals of Surgery [Lippincott Williams & Wilkins]
卷期号:244 (5): 668-676 被引量:93
标识
DOI:10.1097/01.sla.0000225356.04304.bc
摘要

In Brief Objectives: To compare the results of randomized controlled trials versus observational studies in meta-analyses of digestive surgical topics. Summary Background Data: While randomized controlled trials have been recognized as providing the highest standard of evidence, claims have been made that observational studies may overestimate treatment benefits. This debate has recently been renewed, particularly with regard to pharmacotherapies. Methods: The PubMed (1966 to April 2004), EMBASE (1986 to April 2004) and Cochrane databases (Issue 2, 2004) were searched to identify meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in digestive surgery. Fifty-two outcomes of 18 topics were identified from 276 original articles (96 randomized trials, 180 observational studies) and included in meta-analyses. All available binary data and study characteristics were extracted and combined separately for randomized and observational studies. In each selected digestive surgical topic, summary odds ratios or relative risks from randomized controlled trials were compared with observational studies using an equivalent calculation method. Results: Significant between-study heterogeneity was seen more often among observational studies (5 of 12 topics) than among randomized trials (1 of 9 topics). In 4 of the 16 primary outcomes compared (10 of 52 total outcomes), summary estimates of treatment effects showed significant discrepancies between the two designs. Conclusions: One fourth of observational studies gave different results than randomized trials, and between-study heterogeneity was more common in observational studies in the field of digestive surgery. Comparison of the results of randomized controlled trials versus observational studies in meta-analyses of digestive surgical topics was performed. One fourth of observational studies gave different results than randomized trials, and between-study heterogeneity was more common in observational studies in the field of digestive surgery.

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
Luna666发布了新的文献求助10
刚刚
赘婿应助大宝哥哥采纳,获得10
刚刚
mly完成签到 ,获得积分10
1秒前
2秒前
2秒前
11发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
2秒前
xyy完成签到 ,获得积分10
2秒前
科研乞丐完成签到,获得积分10
2秒前
2秒前
小曹君完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
苹果亦巧发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
leiiiiiiii发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
4秒前
闪闪的怀蝶完成签到,获得积分20
4秒前
耀之发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
打打应助木木采纳,获得10
4秒前
完美世界应助田桐采纳,获得10
4秒前
往哪李跑完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
可莉完成签到 ,获得积分10
5秒前
搞怪新晴完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
psy完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
猫学者完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
你快睡吧发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
阿巴阿巴完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
朴素傲松完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
7秒前
wzyyyyy发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
乐观无心发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
cdercder应助qunqingqing采纳,获得10
8秒前
白耀庭完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
科研通AI6.3应助CaiHH采纳,获得30
8秒前
李TB完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
李爱国应助努力向前冲采纳,获得10
8秒前
skycool完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
10秒前
冷静冰萍完成签到 ,获得积分10
11秒前
木林小林林完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
11秒前
12秒前
高分求助中
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
Organic Reactions, Volume 116 1500
VALIDATION OF THE TAYLOR, ALAMEL AND VPSC MODELS FOR PLASTIC ANISOTROPY MODELING OF SHEET METALS 1000
Geist der Kunst und Kultur 1000
Middleton's Allergy Principles and Practice 10th Edition(Middleton's Allergy 2-Volume Set, 10th Edition) 1000
Resistance Spot Welding Dataset for Automobile Body-in-White Quality Analysis 748
日本現代怪異事典 副読本 700
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 纳米技术 工程类 有机化学 化学工程 生物化学 计算机科学 内科学 物理 复合材料 催化作用 细胞生物学 无机化学 光电子学 物理化学 电极 基因
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 7402289
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 9007088
关于积分的说明 19175998
捐赠科研通 7035882
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 3231202
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 2393586
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 2213014