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

INTRODUCTION High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable evidence on the comparative efficacy of new medicines. However, non-randomised studies (NRS) are increasingly recognised as a source of insights into the real-world performance of novel therapeutic products, particularly when traditional RCTs are impractical or lack generalisability. This means there is a growing need for synthesising evidence from RCTs and NRS in healthcare decision making, particularly given recent developments such as innovative study designs, digital technologies and linked databases across countries. Crucially, however, no formal framework exists to guide the integration of these data types. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS To address this gap, we used a mixed methods approach (review of existing guidance, methodological papers, Delphi survey) to develop guidance for researchers and healthcare decision-makers on when and how to best combine evidence from NRS and RCTs to improve transparency and build confidence in the resulting summary effect estimates. RESULTS Our framework comprises seven steps on guiding the integration and interpretation of evidence from NRS and RCTs and we offer recommendations on the most appropriate statistical approaches based on three main analytical scenarios in healthcare decision making (specifically, 'high-bar evidence' when RCTs are the preferred source of evidence, 'medium,' and 'low' when NRS is the main source of inference). CONCLUSION Our framework augments existing guidance on assessing the quality of NRS and their compatibility with RCTs for evidence synthesis, while also highlighting potential challenges in implementing it. This manuscript received endorsement from the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

[1]  Michele Tarsilla Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

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

[3]  Cathal Walsh,et al.  Incorporating data from various trial designs into a mixed treatment comparison model , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  E. Nicod,et al.  Developing an evidence-based methodological framework to systematically compare HTA coverage decisions: A mixed methods study. , 2016, Health policy.

[5]  Julian P T Higgins,et al.  Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. , 2008, International journal of epidemiology.

[6]  Olaf Klungel,et al.  Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[7]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Donald B Rubin,et al.  Bridging observational studies and randomized experiments by embedding the former in the latter , 2017, Statistical methods in medical research.

[9]  David J Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bias modelling in evidence synthesis , 2009, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A,.

[10]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[11]  Gerta Rücker,et al.  Detecting and adjusting for small‐study effects in meta‐analysis , 2011, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[12]  David J. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Multiple-bias modelling for analysis of observational data - Discussion , 2005 .

[13]  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.

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

[15]  Kerrie Mengersen,et al.  Adjusted Likelihoods for Synthesizing Empirical Evidence from Studies that Differ in Quality and Design: Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke , 2004 .

[16]  E. Perfetto,et al.  Patient-Community Perspectives on Real-World Evidence: Enhancing Engagement, Understanding, and Trust , 2019, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[17]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Non‐randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions , 2013, Research synthesis methods.

[18]  B. Vandermeer,et al.  Handling Continuous Outcomes in Quantitative Synthesis , 2013 .

[19]  J. Krause,et al.  Real-World Evidence in the Real World: Beyond the FDA , 2018, American Journal of Law & Medicine.

[20]  Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practice (GPP) , 2016, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[21]  K. Abrams,et al.  The inclusion of real world evidence in clinical development planning , 2018, Trials.

[22]  Cynthia P Iglesias,et al.  A bias-adjusted evidence synthesis of RCT and observational data: the case of total hip replacement. , 2017, Health economics.

[23]  S. Palmer,et al.  The assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: an exploration of methods for review, economic evaluation and appraisal. , 2017, Health technology assessment.

[24]  Dimitris Mavridis,et al.  Combining randomized and non‐randomized evidence in network meta‐analysis , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 2 , 2013, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[26]  Pablo Emilio Verde,et al.  The hierarchical metaregression approach and learning from clinical evidence , 2019, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[27]  Alison Cave,et al.  Real‐World Data for Regulatory Decision Making: Challenges and Possible Solutions for Europe , 2019, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[28]  M. Epstein,et al.  Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practices (GPP) , 2008 .

[29]  C Daniel Mullins,et al.  A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[30]  Paul Landais,et al.  Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[31]  T. Stürmer,et al.  Methodological considerations when analysing and interpreting real-world data. , 2020, Rheumatology.

[32]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[33]  Pablo Emilio Verde,et al.  Two Examples of Bayesian Evidence Synthesis with the Hierarchical Meta-Regression Approach , 2017 .

[34]  Louise J Jackson,et al.  Effects of antenatal diet and physical activity on maternal and fetal outcomes: individual patient data meta-analysis and health economic evaluation. , 2017, Health technology assessment.

[35]  Malcolm Rowland,et al.  Bridging the efficacy–effectiveness gap: a regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[36]  J. Pearl,et al.  Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. , 1999, Epidemiology.

[37]  S. Pauker,et al.  The Discrepancy between Observational Studies and Randomized Trials of Menopausal Hormone Therapy: Did Expectations Shape Experience? , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[38]  S. Burgess Estimating and contextualizing the attenuation of odds ratios due to non collapsibility , 2017 .

[39]  J. Guo,et al.  Real‐World Evidence: What It Is and What It Can Tell Us According to the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) Special Interest Group (SIG) , 2018, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[40]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 7 , 2013, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[41]  M. Rovers,et al.  The effects of clinical and statistical heterogeneity on the predictive values of results from meta-analyses. , 2014, Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

[42]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Multiple‐bias modelling for analysis of observational data , 2005 .

[43]  Sofia Dias,et al.  Threshold Analysis as an Alternative to GRADE for Assessing Confidence in Guideline Recommendations Based on Network Meta-analyses , 2019, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[44]  Richard Grieve,et al.  THE USE OF REAL WORLD DATA FOR THE ESTIMATION OF TREATMENT EFFECTS IN NICE DECISION MAKING , 2016 .

[45]  M. Mcclellan,et al.  Understanding the Need for Non-Interventional Studies Using Secondary Data to Generate Real-World Evidence for Regulatory Decision Making, and Demonstrating Their Credibility , 2019 .

[46]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Commentary: Adjusting for bias: a user's guide to performing plastic surgery on meta-analyses of observational studies. , 2011, International journal of epidemiology.

[47]  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.

[48]  Christian Ohmann,et al.  Combining randomized and non‐randomized evidence in clinical research: a review of methods and applications , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

[49]  Uwe Siebert,et al.  Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retr , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[50]  Michael L. Johnson,et al.  Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part III. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[51]  S. Cummings,et al.  Effect of bisphosphonate use on risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: results from the randomized clinical trials of alendronate and zoledronic acid. , 2014, JAMA internal medicine.

[52]  P. Bauer,et al.  The risks of methodology aversion in drug regulation , 2014, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[53]  J. Johnston,et al.  Reweighting Randomized Controlled Trial Evidence to Better Reflect Real Life – A Case Study of the Innovative Medicines Initiative , 2020, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[54]  M. Borenstein,et al.  Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments , 2006 .

[55]  Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Best Practices for Conducting and Reporting Pharmacoepidemiologic Safety Studies Using Electronic Healthcare Data , 2013 .

[56]  M. Sydes,et al.  Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis , 2007, Trials.

[57]  Sally C Morton,et al.  Standards and guidelines for observational studies: quality is in the eye of the beholder. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[58]  Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices ( GVP ) Module , 2013 .

[59]  David J Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost‐effectiveness modelling , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[60]  D. Scott,et al.  Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies—A review of recommended and commonly used tools , 2019, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[61]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments , 2007, Psychometrika.

[62]  J. Hanley,et al.  Recovering the raw data behind a non-parametric survival curve , 2014, Systematic Reviews.

[63]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Heterogeneity: Subgroups, Meta-Regression, Bias And Bias-Adjustment , 2011 .

[64]  R. Chlebowski,et al.  Menopausal hormone therapy after breast cancer: a meta-analysis and critical appraisal of the evidence , 2005, Breast Cancer Research.

[65]  Adrian Towse,et al.  Real-world evidence for coverage decisions: opportunities and challenges. , 2018, Journal of comparative effectiveness research.

[66]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2019, CHANCE.

[67]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  An overview of methods for network meta-analysis using individual participant data: when do benefits arise? , 2018, Statistical methods in medical research.

[68]  Anthonius de Boer,et al.  Systematic differences in treatment effect estimates between propensity score methods and logistic regression. , 2008, International journal of epidemiology.

[69]  P. Austin An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies , 2011, Multivariate behavioral research.

[70]  D. Moher,et al.  Establishing a Minimum Dataset for Prospective Registration of Systematic Reviews: An International Consultation , 2011, PloS one.

[71]  Nikolaos A Patsopoulos,et al.  Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[72]  Olaf Klungel,et al.  What Is Real-World Data? A Review of Definitions Based on Literature and Stakeholder Interviews. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[73]  Canary Wharf,et al.  The European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) , 2012 .

[74]  M. Egger,et al.  Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[75]  Tamara Rader,et al.  Searching for and selecting studies , 2019, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

[76]  Jelle J Goeman,et al.  Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis , 2016, BMJ Open.

[77]  A. Mebazaa,et al.  Propensity score estimators for the average treatment effect and the average treatment effect on the treated may yield very different estimates , 2016, Statistical methods in medical research.

[78]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Checklists of methodological issues for review authors to consider when including non‐randomized studies in systematic reviews , 2013, Research synthesis methods.

[79]  David Madigan,et al.  Good practices for real‐world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR‐ISPE Special Task Force on real‐world evidence in health care decision making , 2017, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[80]  R. Platt,et al.  A FRAMEWORK FOR REGULATORY USE OF REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE , 2017 .

[81]  M. Parmar,et al.  Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[82]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[83]  U. Ekelund,et al.  A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies , 2010, International journal of epidemiology.

[84]  Kelvin K. W. Chan,et al.  Developing a framework to incorporate real-world evidence in cancer drug funding decisions: the Canadian Real-world Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) collaboration , 2020, BMJ Open.

[85]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[86]  Richard F MacLehose,et al.  Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. , 2014, International journal of epidemiology.