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:91
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
Hazeal完成签到 ,获得积分10
刚刚
Owen的应助被段采萱采纳,获得10
1秒前
1秒前
1秒前
深情安青的应助被biowzf采纳,获得10
1秒前
李健的小迷弟的应助被朝颜采纳,获得10
2秒前
2秒前
墨墨小7发布了新的文献求助30
2秒前
Fjun完成签到,获得积分20
2秒前
2秒前
Owen的应助被默默冥茗采纳,获得30
2秒前
2秒前
stitch发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
3秒前
洋仔发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
ER完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
YanYingHaoComeon完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
3秒前
宁一样完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
赵本毅完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
XR的应助被Noufil采纳,获得250
4秒前
fpf的应助被abner采纳,获得10
4秒前
科研通AI6.2的应助被又又采纳,获得10
4秒前
4秒前
小c_发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
5秒前
5秒前
5秒前
1y完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
向着白昼发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
Damon完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
6秒前
周末完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
北听筠发布了新的文献求助50
6秒前
6秒前
开心棉花糖完成签到 ,获得积分10
6秒前
6秒前
842694发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
jing发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
自然访彤发布了新的文献求助10
7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
Energie-Contracting 1500
Klimaschutzrecht durch den Energiesektor im Mehrebenensystem – Ein Rechtsvergleich 1000
Sustainable Engineered Micro/Nanofibers and Hybrid Nanocomposites for Environmental Remediation 400
Ecotourism 400
Analytical Separation Science 300
Civilization and War 300
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 纳米技术 计算机科学 工程类 有机化学 化学工程 生物化学 物理 复合材料 内科学 催化作用 光电子学 人工智能 细胞生物学 无机化学 物理化学 数学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 8070644
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 9490950
关于积分的说明 21362169
捐赠科研通 7638901
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 3398734
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 2528573
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 2436914