Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Oct;64(10):1076-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.005. Epub 2011 Apr 9.

Treatments effects from randomized trials and propensity score analyses were similar in similar populations in an example from cardiac surgery.

Author information

1
Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Halle-Wittenberg, 06097 Halle (Saale), Germany. oliver.kuss@medizin.uni-halle.de

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Analyses comparing randomized to nonrandomized clinical trials suffer from the fact that the study populations are usually different. We aimed for a comparison of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and propensity score (PS) analyses in similar populations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:

In a systematic review, we "meta-matched" RCTs and PS analyses that compared the off- and the on-pump technique in coronary artery bypass grafting. "Meta-confounders" were summarized in a "meta-propensity score" and were used for "meta-matching." We compared treatment effects between RCTs and PS analyses for 10 previously defined binary clinical outcomes in this "meta-matched" population as differences in "meta-odds ratios."

RESULTS:

For all clinical outcomes, the estimated differences in "meta-odds ratios" were below an absolute value of 0.15, all confidence intervals included the null.

CONCLUSIONS:

In our example, treatment effects of off-pump versus on-pump surgery from RCTs and PS analyses were very similar in a "meta-matched" population of studies, indicating that only a small remaining bias is present in PS analyses.

PMID:
21482068
DOI:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.005
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center