nach oben

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Erschienen in:

19.03.2020 | Original Research

Benchmarking Observational Analyses Against Randomized Trials: a Review of Studies Assessing Propensity Score Methods

verfasst von: Shaun P. Forbes, AM, Issa J. Dahabreh, MD ScD

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 5/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Observational analysis methods can be refined by benchmarking against randomized trials. We reviewed studies systematically comparing observational analyses using propensity score methods against randomized trials to explore whether intervention or outcome characteristics predict agreement between designs.

Methods

We searched PubMed (from January 1, 2000, to April 30, 2017), the AHRQ Scientific Resource Center Methods Library, reference lists, and bibliographies to identify systematic reviews that compared estimates from observational analyses using propensity scores against randomized trials across three or more clinical topics; reported extractable relative risk (RR) data; and were published in English. One reviewer extracted data from all eligible systematic reviews; a second reviewer verified the extracted data.

Results

Six systematic reviews matching published observational studies to randomized trials, published between 2012 and 2016, met our inclusion criteria. The reviews reported on 127 comparisons overall, in cardiology (29 comparisons), surgery (49), critical care medicine and sepsis (46), nephrology (2), and oncology (1). Disagreements were large (relative RR < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 68 (54%) and statistically significant in 12 (9%) of the comparisons. The degree of agreement varied among reviews but was not strongly associated with intervention or outcome characteristics.

Discussion

Disagreements between observational studies using propensity score methods and randomized trials can occur for many reasons and the available data cannot be used to discern the reasons behind specific disagreements. Better benchmarking of observational analyses using propensity scores (and other causal inference methods) is possible using observational studies that explicitly attempt to emulate target trials.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Fisher RA. The design of experiments: Oliver And Boyd; Edinburgh; London, 1937.

Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.

Dahabreh IJ. Randomization, randomized trials, and analyses using observational data: A commentary on Deaton and Cartwright. Soc Sci Med 2018;210:41–44.PubMed

Hernan MA, Robins JM. Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available. Am J Epidemiol 2016;183(8):758–64.PubMedPubMedCentral

Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000;342(25):1887–92.PubMedPubMedCentral

Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000;342(25):1878–86.PubMed

MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, et al. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(34):1–154.PubMed

Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 2001;286(7):821–30.PubMed

Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(27):iii-x, 1–173.

10.

Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007(2):MR000012.

11.

Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L. Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014(4):MR000034.

12.

Mitchell M. Engauge Digitizer. A free open-source software to extract data points from a graph image. Hosted on SourceForge at: http://digitizer.sourceforge.net; 2002.

13.

Sterne JA, Jüni P, Schulz KF, et al. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta-epidemiological’ research. Stat Med 2002;21(11):1513–24.PubMed

14.

Dahabreh IJ, Sheldrick RC, Paulus JK, et al. Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2012;33(15):1893–901.PubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Kitsios GD, Dahabreh IJ, Callahan S, et al. Can We Trust Observational Studies Using Propensity Scores in the Critical Care Literature? A Systematic Comparison With Randomized Clinical Trials. Crit Care Med 2015;43(9):1870–9.PubMed

16.

Franklin JM, Dejene S, Huybrechts KF, et al. A Bias in the Evaluation of Bias Comparing Randomized Trials with Nonexperimental Studies. Epidemiol Methods 2017;6(1).

17.

Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 2003;326(7382):219.PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Lonjon G, Boutron I, Trinquart L, et al. Comparison of treatment effect estimates from prospective nonrandomized studies with propensity score analysis and randomized controlled trials of surgical procedures. Ann Surg 2014;259(1):18–25.PubMed

19.

Zhang Z, Ni H, Xu X. Do the observational studies using propensity score analysis agree with randomized controlled trials in the area of sepsis? J Crit Care 2014;29(5):886 e9–15.

20.

Zhang Z, Ni H, Xu X. Observational studies using propensity score analysis underestimated the effect sizes in critical care medicine. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67(8):932–9.PubMed

21.

Hemkens LG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JP. Agreement of treatment effects for mortality from routinely collected data and subsequent randomized trials: meta-epidemiological survey. BMJ 2016;352:i493.PubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Cochran WG. Planning and analysis of observational studies: Wiley, Hoboken 2009.

23.

Robins J. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Math Model 1986;7(9–12):1393–512.

24.

Miettinen OS. The clinical trial as a paradigm for epidemiologic research. J Clin Epidemiol 1989;42(6):491–6; discussion 97-8.PubMed

25.

Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med 2007;26(1):20–36.PubMed

26.

Hernan MA, Alonso A, Logan R, et al. Observational studies analyzed like randomized experiments: an application to postmenopausal hormone therapy and coronary heart disease. Epidemiology 2008;19(6):766–79.PubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Rosenbaum PR. Design of observational studies: Springer, Berlin 2010.

28.

Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998;317(7167):1185–90.PubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Ryan PB, Madigan D, Stang PE, et al. Empirical assessment of methods for risk identification in healthcare data: results from the experiments of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Stat Med 2012;31(30):4401–15.PubMed

30.

LaLonde RJ. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. Am Econ Rev 1986:604–20.

31.

Fraker T, Maynard R. The adequacy of comparison group designs for evaluations of employment-related programs. J Hum Resour 1987:194–227.

32.

Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. Confirmation from meta-analysis. Am Psychol 1993;48(12):1181–209.PubMed

33.

Glazerman S, Levy DM, Myers D. Nonexperimental versus experimental estimates of earnings impacts. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 2003;589(1):63–93.

34.

Agodini R, Dynarski M. Are experiments the only option? A look at dropout prevention programs. Rev Econ Stat 2004;86(1):180–94.

35.

Michalopoulos C, Bloom HS, Hill CJ. Can propensity-score methods match the findings from a random assignment evaluation of mandatory welfare-to-work programs? Rev Econ Stat 2004;86(1):156–79.

36.

Hill JL, Reiter JP, Zanutto EL. A comparison of experimental and observational data analyses. Applied Bayesian modeling and causal inference from incomplete-data perspectives: An essential journey with Donald Rubin’s statistical family 2004:49–60.

37.

Cook TD, Shadish WR, Wong VC. Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study comparisons. J Policy Anal Manag 2008;27(4):724–50.

38.

Dehejia RH, Wahba S. Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. J Am Stat Assoc 1999;94(448):1053–62.

39.

Smith JA, Todd PE. Reconciling conflicting evidence on the performance of propensity-score matching methods. Am Econ Rev 2001;91(2):112–18.

40.

Smith JA, Todd PE. Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? J Econ 2005;125(1):305–53.

41.

Dehejia R. Practical propensity score matching: a reply to Smith and Todd. J Econ 2005;125(1):355–64.

42.

Berger ML, Dreyer N, Anderson F, et al. Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health 2012;15(2):217–30.PubMed

43.

Franklin JM, Schneeweiss S. When and How Can Real World Data Analyses Substitute for Randomized Controlled Trials? Clin Pharmacol Ther 2017;102(6):924–33.PubMed

44.

Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. Int J Epidemiol 1986;15(3):413–9.PubMed

45.

Hernan MA, Sauer BC, Hernandez-Diaz S, et al. Specifying a target trial prevents immortal time bias and other self-inflicted injuries in observational analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;79:70–75.PubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Berk RA. Randomized experiments as the bronze standard. J Exp Criminol 2005;1(4):417–33.

47.

Shadish WR, Clark MH, Steiner PM. Can nonrandomized experiments yield accurate answers? A randomized experiment comparing random and nonrandom assignments. J Am Stat Assoc 2008;103(484):1334–44.

48.

Steiner PM, Cook TD, Shadish WR, et al. The importance of covariate selection in controlling for selection bias in observational studies. Psychol Methods 2010;15(3):250–67.PubMed

49.

Pohl S, Steiner PM, Eisermann J, et al. Unbiased causal inference from an observational study: Results of a within-study comparison. Educ Eval Policy Anal 2009;31(4):463–79.

50.

Gruber S, Chakravarty A, Heckbert SR, et al. Design and analysis choices for safety surveillance evaluations need to be tuned to the specifics of the hypothesized drug-outcome association. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2016;25(9):973–81.PubMed

51.

Dahabreh IJ, Kent DM. Can the learning health care system be educated with observational data? JAMA 2014;312(2):129–30.PubMed

52.

Olschewski M, Scheurlen H. Comprehensive Cohort Study: an alternative to randomized consent design in a breast preservation trial. Methods Inf Med 1985;24(3):131–4.PubMed

53.

Schmoor C, Olschewski M, Schumacher M. Randomized and non-randomized patients in clinical trials: experiences with comprehensive cohort studies. Stat Med 1996;15(3):263–71.PubMed

54.

Califf RM, Robb MA, Bindman AB, et al. Transforming Evidence Generation to Support Health and Health Care Decisions. N Engl J Med 2016;375(24):2395–400.PubMed

55.

Li G, Sajobi TT, Menon BK, et al. Registry-based randomized controlled trials- what are the advantages, challenges, and areas for future research? J Clin Epidemiol 2016;80:16–24.PubMed

Titel: Benchmarking Observational Analyses Against Randomized Trials: a Review of Studies Assessing Propensity Score Methods
verfasst von: Shaun P. Forbes, AM
Issa J. Dahabreh, MD ScD
Publikationsdatum: 19.03.2020
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05713-5

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

25.04.2024 | Hypotonie | Nachrichten

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Benchmarking Observational Analyses Against Randomized Trials: a Review of Studies Assessing Propensity Score Methods

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

Update Innere Medizin

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2020

Patient Outcomes Following Interhospital Care Fragmentation: A Systematic Review

Worse Mental Health Among More-Acculturated and Younger Immigrants Experiencing Discrimination: California Health Interview Survey, 2015–2016

Capsule Commentary on Glod et al., Clerkship Roles and Responsibilities in a Rapidly Changing Landscape: a National Survey of Internal Medicine Clerkship Directors

Instant Messaging: an Innovative Way to Recruit Primary Care Providers for Qualitative Research

Trends in Diabetes Management Among US Adults: 1999–2016

Team-Based Care: Caring for the team under payment reform

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC

Update Innere Medizin