4.6 Article

Evaluating the impact of including non-randomised studies of interventions in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073232

关键词

systematic review; statistics & research methods; epidemiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to explore the integration of non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) into meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate the impact of including NRSIs on pooled estimates. A systematic survey of 210 systematic reviews published from 2017 to 2022 will be conducted to assess the concordance between NRSIs and RCTs, and the factors associated with agreement will be examined through regression analysis. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and condensed summaries for clinicians, health policymakers, and guideline developers.
IntroductionAlthough interest in including non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is growing, estimates of effectiveness obtained from NRSIs are vulnerable to greater bias than RCTs. The objectives of this study are to: (1) explore how NRSIs can be integrated into a meta-analysis of RCTs; (2) assess concordance of the evidence from non-randomised and randomised trials and explore factors associated with agreement; and (3) investigate the impact on estimates of pooled bodies of evidence when NRSIs are included. Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic survey of 210 systematic reviews that include both RCTs and NRSIs, published from 2017 to 2022. We will randomly select reviews, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by Core vs non-Core clinical journals, as defined by the National Library of Medicine. Teams of paired reviewers will independently determine eligibility and abstract data using standardised, pilot-tested forms. The concordance of the evidence will be assessed by exploring agreement in the relative effect reported by NRSIs and RCT addressing the same clinical question, defined as similarity of the population, intervention/exposure, control and outcomes. We will conduct univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the association of prespecified study characteristics with agreement in the estimates between NRSIs and RCTs. We will calculate the ratio of the relative effect estimate from NRSIs over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% CI. We will use a bias-corrected meta-analysis model to investigate the influence on pooled estimates when NRSIs are included in the evidence synthesis. Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and condensed summaries for clinicians, health policymakers and guideline developers regarding the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of meta-analysis that integrate RCTs and NRSIs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据