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

Introduction Although 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 analysis We 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 dissemination Ethics 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.

[1]  Xin Sun,et al.  Methods for the Inclusion of Real-World Evidence in a Rare Events Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials , 2023, Journal of clinical medicine.

[2]  T. Wilt,et al.  Inclusion of nonrandomized studies of interventions in systematic reviews of interventions: updated guidance from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Effective Health Care program. , 2022, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  Louis C. Harms,et al.  Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research: a meta-epidemiological study , 2022, BMC Medicine.

[4]  P. Lurie,et al.  Agreement of treatment effects from observational studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone for covid-19: meta-epidemiological study , 2022, BMJ.

[5]  Louis C. Harms,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of the Impact Scenario of Pooling Bodies of Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research. , 2022, Advances in nutrition.

[6]  R. Willke,et al.  Comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmaceuticals assessed in observational studies compared with randomized controlled trials , 2021, BMC Medicine.

[7]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE guidance 24 optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines , 2021, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  J. Meerpohl,et al.  Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomised controlled trials and cohort studies in nutrition research: meta-epidemiological study , 2021, BMJ.

[9]  J. Gamble,et al.  Sodium Glucose Co-Transporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors and The Risk of Diabetic Ketoacidosis: An Example of Complementary Evidence for Rare Adverse Events. , 2021, American journal of epidemiology.

[10]  Grammati Sarri,et al.  Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making , 2020, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

[11]  Pablo Emilio Verde,et al.  A bias‐corrected meta‐analysis model for combining, studies of different types and quality , 2020, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[12]  W. Bolislis,et al.  Use of real-world data for new drug applications and line extensions. , 2020, Clinical therapeutics.

[13]  S. Toh,et al.  Use of real‐world evidence in regulatory decisions for rare diseases in the United States—Current status and future directions , 2020, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[14]  F. Tubach,et al.  Meta-analyses frequently pooled different study types together: a meta-epidemiological study. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Including non‐randomized studies on intervention effects , 2019, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

[16]  Natalie S Blencowe,et al.  RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2019, BMJ.

[17]  K. Abrams,et al.  Methods for the inclusion of real-world evidence in network meta-analysis , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[18]  Xin Sun,et al.  Real world evidence: experience and lessons from China , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[19]  L. Tang,et al.  Real world evidence: experience and lessons from China , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[20]  P. Tugwell,et al.  AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[21]  R. Califf,et al.  Real-World Evidence - What Is It and What Can It Tell Us? , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study , 2016, PLoS medicine.

[23]  P. Ravaud,et al.  Meta-analyses including non-randomized studies of therapeutic interventions: a methodological review , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[24]  野間 久史 Individual Participant Dataに基づくメタアナリシス , 2014 .

[25]  L. Bero,et al.  Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[26]  Robert L Grant,et al.  Converting an odds ratio to a range of plausible relative risks for better communication of research findings , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[27]  Lisa Hartling,et al.  Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  T. Trikalinos,et al.  Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes. , 2012, European heart journal.

[29]  David R. Jones,et al.  Methodology and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in psychiatric epidemiology: systematic review. , 2012, The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science.

[30]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Observational studies in systematic [corrected] reviews of comparative effectiveness: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[31]  Su Golder,et al.  Meta-analyses of Adverse Effects Data Derived from Randomised Controlled Trials as Compared to Observational Studies: Methodological Overview , 2011, PLoS medicine.

[32]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[33]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[34]  S. Golder,et al.  Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects , 2006, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[35]  P. Rothwell,et al.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” , 2005, The Lancet.

[36]  S. Barton,et al.  Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.