Cargando…
Observational evidence and strength of evidence domains: case examples
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of healthcare interventions most often focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, certain circumstances warrant consideration of observational evidence, and such studies are increasingly being included as evidence in systematic reviews. METHODS: To illustra...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3996500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24758494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-35 |
_version_ | 1782313056351551488 |
---|---|
author | O’Neil, Maya Berkman, Nancy Hartling, Lisa Chang, Stephanie Anderson, Johanna Motu’apuaka, Makalapua Guise, Jeanne-Marie McDonagh, Marian S |
author_facet | O’Neil, Maya Berkman, Nancy Hartling, Lisa Chang, Stephanie Anderson, Johanna Motu’apuaka, Makalapua Guise, Jeanne-Marie McDonagh, Marian S |
author_sort | O’Neil, Maya |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of healthcare interventions most often focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, certain circumstances warrant consideration of observational evidence, and such studies are increasingly being included as evidence in systematic reviews. METHODS: To illustrate the use of observational evidence, we present case examples of systematic reviews in which observational evidence was considered as well as case examples of individual observational studies, and how they demonstrate various strength of evidence domains in accordance with current Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) methods guidance. RESULTS: In the presented examples, observational evidence is used when RCTs are infeasible or raise ethical concerns, lack generalizability, or provide insufficient data. Individual study case examples highlight how observational evidence may fulfill required strength of evidence domains, such as study limitations (reduced risk of selection, detection, performance, and attrition); directness; consistency; precision; and reporting bias (publication, selective outcome reporting, and selective analysis reporting), as well as additional domains of dose-response association, plausible confounding that would decrease the observed effect, and strength of association (magnitude of effect). CONCLUSIONS: The cases highlighted in this paper demonstrate how observational studies may provide moderate to (rarely) high strength evidence in systematic reviews. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3996500 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39965002014-04-24 Observational evidence and strength of evidence domains: case examples O’Neil, Maya Berkman, Nancy Hartling, Lisa Chang, Stephanie Anderson, Johanna Motu’apuaka, Makalapua Guise, Jeanne-Marie McDonagh, Marian S Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of healthcare interventions most often focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, certain circumstances warrant consideration of observational evidence, and such studies are increasingly being included as evidence in systematic reviews. METHODS: To illustrate the use of observational evidence, we present case examples of systematic reviews in which observational evidence was considered as well as case examples of individual observational studies, and how they demonstrate various strength of evidence domains in accordance with current Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) methods guidance. RESULTS: In the presented examples, observational evidence is used when RCTs are infeasible or raise ethical concerns, lack generalizability, or provide insufficient data. Individual study case examples highlight how observational evidence may fulfill required strength of evidence domains, such as study limitations (reduced risk of selection, detection, performance, and attrition); directness; consistency; precision; and reporting bias (publication, selective outcome reporting, and selective analysis reporting), as well as additional domains of dose-response association, plausible confounding that would decrease the observed effect, and strength of association (magnitude of effect). CONCLUSIONS: The cases highlighted in this paper demonstrate how observational studies may provide moderate to (rarely) high strength evidence in systematic reviews. BioMed Central 2014-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC3996500/ /pubmed/24758494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-35 Text en Copyright © 2014 O'Neil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research O’Neil, Maya Berkman, Nancy Hartling, Lisa Chang, Stephanie Anderson, Johanna Motu’apuaka, Makalapua Guise, Jeanne-Marie McDonagh, Marian S Observational evidence and strength of evidence domains: case examples |
title | Observational evidence and strength of evidence domains: case examples |
title_full | Observational evidence and strength of evidence domains: case examples |
title_fullStr | Observational evidence and strength of evidence domains: case examples |
title_full_unstemmed | Observational evidence and strength of evidence domains: case examples |
title_short | Observational evidence and strength of evidence domains: case examples |
title_sort | observational evidence and strength of evidence domains: case examples |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3996500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24758494 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-35 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT oneilmaya observationalevidenceandstrengthofevidencedomainscaseexamples AT berkmannancy observationalevidenceandstrengthofevidencedomainscaseexamples AT hartlinglisa observationalevidenceandstrengthofevidencedomainscaseexamples AT changstephanie observationalevidenceandstrengthofevidencedomainscaseexamples AT andersonjohanna observationalevidenceandstrengthofevidencedomainscaseexamples AT motuapuakamakalapua observationalevidenceandstrengthofevidencedomainscaseexamples AT guisejeannemarie observationalevidenceandstrengthofevidencedomainscaseexamples AT mcdonaghmarians observationalevidenceandstrengthofevidencedomainscaseexamples |