Systematic reviews incorporating evidence from nonrandomized study designs: reasons for caution when estimating health effects.
Eur J Clin Nutr
; 59 Suppl 1: S155-61, 2005 Aug.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-16052184
ABSTRACT
Systematic reviews that include nonrandomized studies (NRS) face a number of logistical challenges. However, the greatest threat to the validity of such reviews arises from the differing susceptibility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and NRS to selection bias. Groups compared in NRS are unlikely to be balanced because of the reasons leading study participants to adopt different health behaviours or to be treated differentially. Researchers can try to minimize the susceptibility of NRS to selection bias both at the design stage, for example, by matching participants on key prognostic factors, and during data analysis, for example, by regression modelling. However, because of logistical difficulties in matching, imperfect knowledge about the relationships between prognostic factors and between prognostic factors and outcome, and measurement limitations, it is inevitable that estimates of effect size derived from NRS will be confounded to some extent. Researchers, reviewers and users of evidence alike need to be aware of the consequences of residual confounding. In poor quality RCTs, selection bias tends to favour the new treatment being evaluated. Selection bias need not necessarily lead to systematic bias in favour of one treatment but, even if it acts in an unpredictable way, it will still give rise to additional, nonstatistical uncertainty bias around the estimate of effect size. Systematic reviews of NRS studies run the risk of compounding these biases. Nutritional choices and uptake of health education about nutrition are very likely to be associated with potential confounding factors. Therefore, pooled estimates of the effects of nutritional exposures and their confidence intervals are likely to be misleading; reviewers need to take into account both systematic and uncertainty bias.
Buscar no Google
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Projetos de Pesquisa
/
Literatura de Revisão como Assunto
/
Viés
Tipo de estudo:
Clinical_trials
/
Prognostic_studies
Limite:
Humans
Idioma:
En
Revista:
Eur J Clin Nutr
Assunto da revista:
CIENCIAS DA NUTRICAO
Ano de publicação:
2005
Tipo de documento:
Article
País de afiliação:
Reino Unido