Cargando…

Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?

BACKGROUND: As defined by evidence-based medicine randomized controlled trials rank higher than observational studies in the hierarchy of clinical research. Accordingly, when assessing the effects of treatments on patient outcomes, there is a tendency to focus on the study method rather than also ap...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trentino, Kevin, Farmer, Shannon, Gross, Irwin, Shander, Aryeh, Isbister, James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27741940
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-016-0264-4
_version_ 1782460238270562304
author Trentino, Kevin
Farmer, Shannon
Gross, Irwin
Shander, Aryeh
Isbister, James
author_facet Trentino, Kevin
Farmer, Shannon
Gross, Irwin
Shander, Aryeh
Isbister, James
author_sort Trentino, Kevin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: As defined by evidence-based medicine randomized controlled trials rank higher than observational studies in the hierarchy of clinical research. Accordingly, when assessing the effects of treatments on patient outcomes, there is a tendency to focus on the study method rather than also appraising the key elements of study design. A long-standing debate regarding findings of randomized controlled trials compared with those of observational studies, their strengths and limitations and questions regarding causal inference, has recently come into focus in relation to research assessing patient outcomes in transfusion medicine. DISCUSSION: Observational studies are seen to have limitations that are largely avoided with randomized controlled trials, leading to the view that observational studies should not generally be used to inform practice. For example, observational studies examining patient outcomes associated with blood transfusion often present higher estimates of adverse outcomes than randomized controlled trials. Some have explained this difference as being a result of observational studies not properly adjusting for differences between patients transfused and those not transfused. However, one factor often overlooked, likely contributing to these variances between study methods is different exposure criteria. Another common to both study methods is exposure dose, specifically, measuring units transfused during only a part of the patient’s hospital stay. SUMMARY: When comparing the results of observational studies with randomized controlled trials assessing transfusion outcomes it is important that one consider not only the study method, but also the key elements of study design. Any study, regardless of its method, should focus on accurate measurement of the exposure and outcome variables of interest. Failure to do so may subject the study, regardless of its type, to bias and the need to interpret the results with caution.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5064888
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50648882016-10-18 Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes? Trentino, Kevin Farmer, Shannon Gross, Irwin Shander, Aryeh Isbister, James BMC Anesthesiol Debate BACKGROUND: As defined by evidence-based medicine randomized controlled trials rank higher than observational studies in the hierarchy of clinical research. Accordingly, when assessing the effects of treatments on patient outcomes, there is a tendency to focus on the study method rather than also appraising the key elements of study design. A long-standing debate regarding findings of randomized controlled trials compared with those of observational studies, their strengths and limitations and questions regarding causal inference, has recently come into focus in relation to research assessing patient outcomes in transfusion medicine. DISCUSSION: Observational studies are seen to have limitations that are largely avoided with randomized controlled trials, leading to the view that observational studies should not generally be used to inform practice. For example, observational studies examining patient outcomes associated with blood transfusion often present higher estimates of adverse outcomes than randomized controlled trials. Some have explained this difference as being a result of observational studies not properly adjusting for differences between patients transfused and those not transfused. However, one factor often overlooked, likely contributing to these variances between study methods is different exposure criteria. Another common to both study methods is exposure dose, specifically, measuring units transfused during only a part of the patient’s hospital stay. SUMMARY: When comparing the results of observational studies with randomized controlled trials assessing transfusion outcomes it is important that one consider not only the study method, but also the key elements of study design. Any study, regardless of its method, should focus on accurate measurement of the exposure and outcome variables of interest. Failure to do so may subject the study, regardless of its type, to bias and the need to interpret the results with caution. BioMed Central 2016-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5064888/ /pubmed/27741940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-016-0264-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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 Debate
Trentino, Kevin
Farmer, Shannon
Gross, Irwin
Shander, Aryeh
Isbister, James
Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?
title Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?
title_full Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?
title_fullStr Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?
title_full_unstemmed Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?
title_short Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?
title_sort observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27741940
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-016-0264-4
work_keys_str_mv AT trentinokevin observationalstudiesshouldwesimplyignoretheminassessingtransfusionoutcomes
AT farmershannon observationalstudiesshouldwesimplyignoretheminassessingtransfusionoutcomes
AT grossirwin observationalstudiesshouldwesimplyignoretheminassessingtransfusionoutcomes
AT shanderaryeh observationalstudiesshouldwesimplyignoretheminassessingtransfusionoutcomes
AT isbisterjames observationalstudiesshouldwesimplyignoretheminassessingtransfusionoutcomes