Systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology

Abstract The limited availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in nephrology undermines causal inferences in meta-analyses. Systematic reviews of observational studies have grown more common under such circumstances. We conducted systematic reviews of all comparative observational studies...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Miho Kimachi, Akira Onishi, Aran Tajika, Kimihiko Kimachi, Toshi A. Furukawa
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/0e539c600e914abfaba78ce9313139a1
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:0e539c600e914abfaba78ce9313139a1
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:0e539c600e914abfaba78ce9313139a12021-12-02T13:17:55ZSystematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology10.1038/s41598-021-85519-52045-2322https://doaj.org/article/0e539c600e914abfaba78ce9313139a12021-03-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85519-5https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract The limited availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in nephrology undermines causal inferences in meta-analyses. Systematic reviews of observational studies have grown more common under such circumstances. We conducted systematic reviews of all comparative observational studies in nephrology from 2006 to 2016 to assess the trends in the past decade. We then focused on the meta-analyses combining observational studies and RCTs to evaluate the systematic differences in effect estimates between study designs using two statistical methods: by estimating the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) of the pooled OR obtained from observational studies versus those from RCTs and by examining the discrepancies in their statistical significance. The number of systematic reviews of observational studies in nephrology had grown by 11.7-fold in the past decade. Among 56 records combining observational studies and RCTs, ROR suggested that the estimates between study designs agreed well (ROR 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.90–1.23). However, almost half of the reviews led to discrepant interpretations in terms of statistical significance. In conclusion, the findings based on ROR might encourage researchers to justify the inclusion of observational studies in meta-analyses. However, caution is needed, as the interpretations based on statistical significance were less concordant than those based on ROR.Miho KimachiAkira OnishiAran TajikaKimihiko KimachiToshi A. FurukawaNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Miho Kimachi Akira Onishi Aran Tajika Kimihiko Kimachi Toshi A. Furukawa Systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology
description	Abstract The limited availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in nephrology undermines causal inferences in meta-analyses. Systematic reviews of observational studies have grown more common under such circumstances. We conducted systematic reviews of all comparative observational studies in nephrology from 2006 to 2016 to assess the trends in the past decade. We then focused on the meta-analyses combining observational studies and RCTs to evaluate the systematic differences in effect estimates between study designs using two statistical methods: by estimating the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) of the pooled OR obtained from observational studies versus those from RCTs and by examining the discrepancies in their statistical significance. The number of systematic reviews of observational studies in nephrology had grown by 11.7-fold in the past decade. Among 56 records combining observational studies and RCTs, ROR suggested that the estimates between study designs agreed well (ROR 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.90–1.23). However, almost half of the reviews led to discrepant interpretations in terms of statistical significance. In conclusion, the findings based on ROR might encourage researchers to justify the inclusion of observational studies in meta-analyses. However, caution is needed, as the interpretations based on statistical significance were less concordant than those based on ROR.
format	article
author	Miho Kimachi Akira Onishi Aran Tajika Kimihiko Kimachi Toshi A. Furukawa
author_facet	Miho Kimachi Akira Onishi Aran Tajika Kimihiko Kimachi Toshi A. Furukawa
author_sort	Miho Kimachi
title	Systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology
title_short	Systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology
title_full	Systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology
title_fullStr	Systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology
title_full_unstemmed	Systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology
title_sort	systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/0e539c600e914abfaba78ce9313139a1
work_keys_str_mv	AT mihokimachi systematicdifferencesineffectestimatesbetweenobservationalstudiesandrandomizedcontroltrialsinmetaanalysesinnephrology AT akiraonishi systematicdifferencesineffectestimatesbetweenobservationalstudiesandrandomizedcontroltrialsinmetaanalysesinnephrology AT arantajika systematicdifferencesineffectestimatesbetweenobservationalstudiesandrandomizedcontroltrialsinmetaanalysesinnephrology AT kimihikokimachi systematicdifferencesineffectestimatesbetweenobservationalstudiesandrandomizedcontroltrialsinmetaanalysesinnephrology AT toshiafurukawa systematicdifferencesineffectestimatesbetweenobservationalstudiesandrandomizedcontroltrialsinmetaanalysesinnephrology
_version_	1718393315105177600

Systematic differences in effect estimates between observational studies and randomized control trials in meta-analyses in nephrology

Ejemplares similares