Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
CMAJ. 2006 Feb 28;174(5):635-41.

Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies.

Author information

  • 1Clinical Trials and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Information on major harms of medical interventions comes primarily from epidemiologic studies performed after licensing and marketing. Comparison with data from large-scale randomized trials is occasionally feasible. We compared evidence from randomized trials with that from epidemiologic studies to determine whether they give different estimates of risk for important harms of medical interventions.

METHODS:

We targeted well-defined, specific harms of various medical interventions for which data were already available from large-scale randomized trials (> 4000 subjects). Nonrandomized studies involving at least 4000 subjects addressing these same harms were retrieved through a search of MEDLINE. We compared the relative risks and absolute risk differences for specific harms in the randomized and nonrandomized studies.

RESULTS:

Eligible nonrandomized studies were found for 15 harms for which data were available from randomized trials addressing the same harms. Comparisons of relative risks between the study types were feasible for 13 of the 15 topics, and of absolute risk differences for 8 topics. The estimated increase in relative risk differed more than 2-fold between the randomized and nonrandomized studies for 7 (54%) of the 13 topics; the estimated increase in absolute risk differed more than 2-fold for 5 (62%) of the 8 topics. There was no clear predilection for randomized or nonrandomized studies to estimate greater relative risks, but usually (75% [6/8]) the randomized trials estimated larger absolute excess risks of harm than the nonrandomized studies did.

INTERPRETATION:

Nonrandomized studies are often conservative in estimating absolute risks of harms. It would be useful to compare and scrutinize the evidence on harms obtained from both randomized and nonrandomized studies.

Comment in

PMID:
16505459
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC1389826
Free PMC Article

Images from this publication.See all images (1)Free text

PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk