Cargando…
Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement
BACKGROUND: Paucity of RCTs of non-drug technologies lead to widespread dependence on non-randomized studies. Relationship between nonrandomized study design attributes and biased estimates of treatment effects are poorly understood. Our purpose was to estimate the bias associated with specific nonr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8186071/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34098926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-021-01278-0 |
_version_ | 1783704888004313088 |
---|---|
author | Youn, Saerom Wong, Shannon Avery Chrystoja, Caitlin Tomlinson, George Wijeysundera, Harindra C. Bell, Chaim M. Gagliardi, Anna R. Baxter, Nancy N. Takata, Julie Sandhu, Lakhbir Urbach, David Robert |
author_facet | Youn, Saerom Wong, Shannon Avery Chrystoja, Caitlin Tomlinson, George Wijeysundera, Harindra C. Bell, Chaim M. Gagliardi, Anna R. Baxter, Nancy N. Takata, Julie Sandhu, Lakhbir Urbach, David Robert |
author_sort | Youn, Saerom |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Paucity of RCTs of non-drug technologies lead to widespread dependence on non-randomized studies. Relationship between nonrandomized study design attributes and biased estimates of treatment effects are poorly understood. Our purpose was to estimate the bias associated with specific nonrandomized study attributes among studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. RESULTS: We included 6 RCTs and 87 nonrandomized studies. Surgical risk scores were similar for comparison groups in RCTs, but were higher for patients having transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonrandomized studies. Nonrandomized studies underestimated the benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with RCTs. For example, nonrandomized studies without adjustment estimated a higher risk of postoperative mortality for transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (OR 1.43 [95% CI 1.26 to 1.62]) than high quality RCTs (OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.54 to 1.11). Nonrandomized studies using propensity score matching (OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.85 to 1.52]) and regression modelling (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.57 to 0.81]) to adjust results estimated treatment effects closer to high quality RCTs. Nonrandomized studies describing losses to follow-up estimated treatment effects that were significantly closer to high quality RCT than nonrandomized studies that did not. CONCLUSION: Studies with different attributes produce different estimates of treatment effects. Study design attributes related to the completeness of follow-up may explain biased treatment estimates in nonrandomized studies, as in the case of aortic valve replacement where high-risk patients were preferentially selected for the newer (transcatheter) procedure. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01278-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8186071 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81860712021-06-10 Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement Youn, Saerom Wong, Shannon Avery Chrystoja, Caitlin Tomlinson, George Wijeysundera, Harindra C. Bell, Chaim M. Gagliardi, Anna R. Baxter, Nancy N. Takata, Julie Sandhu, Lakhbir Urbach, David Robert BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Paucity of RCTs of non-drug technologies lead to widespread dependence on non-randomized studies. Relationship between nonrandomized study design attributes and biased estimates of treatment effects are poorly understood. Our purpose was to estimate the bias associated with specific nonrandomized study attributes among studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. RESULTS: We included 6 RCTs and 87 nonrandomized studies. Surgical risk scores were similar for comparison groups in RCTs, but were higher for patients having transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonrandomized studies. Nonrandomized studies underestimated the benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with RCTs. For example, nonrandomized studies without adjustment estimated a higher risk of postoperative mortality for transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (OR 1.43 [95% CI 1.26 to 1.62]) than high quality RCTs (OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.54 to 1.11). Nonrandomized studies using propensity score matching (OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.85 to 1.52]) and regression modelling (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.57 to 0.81]) to adjust results estimated treatment effects closer to high quality RCTs. Nonrandomized studies describing losses to follow-up estimated treatment effects that were significantly closer to high quality RCT than nonrandomized studies that did not. CONCLUSION: Studies with different attributes produce different estimates of treatment effects. Study design attributes related to the completeness of follow-up may explain biased treatment estimates in nonrandomized studies, as in the case of aortic valve replacement where high-risk patients were preferentially selected for the newer (transcatheter) procedure. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01278-0. BioMed Central 2021-06-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8186071/ /pubmed/34098926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-021-01278-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Youn, Saerom Wong, Shannon Avery Chrystoja, Caitlin Tomlinson, George Wijeysundera, Harindra C. Bell, Chaim M. Gagliardi, Anna R. Baxter, Nancy N. Takata, Julie Sandhu, Lakhbir Urbach, David Robert Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement |
title | Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement |
title_full | Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement |
title_fullStr | Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement |
title_full_unstemmed | Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement |
title_short | Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement |
title_sort | bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8186071/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34098926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-021-01278-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT younsaerom biasestimationinstudydesignametaepidemiologicalanalysisoftranscatheterversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacement AT wongshannonavery biasestimationinstudydesignametaepidemiologicalanalysisoftranscatheterversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacement AT chrystojacaitlin biasestimationinstudydesignametaepidemiologicalanalysisoftranscatheterversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacement AT tomlinsongeorge biasestimationinstudydesignametaepidemiologicalanalysisoftranscatheterversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacement AT wijeysunderaharindrac biasestimationinstudydesignametaepidemiologicalanalysisoftranscatheterversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacement AT bellchaimm biasestimationinstudydesignametaepidemiologicalanalysisoftranscatheterversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacement AT gagliardiannar biasestimationinstudydesignametaepidemiologicalanalysisoftranscatheterversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacement AT baxternancyn biasestimationinstudydesignametaepidemiologicalanalysisoftranscatheterversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacement AT takatajulie biasestimationinstudydesignametaepidemiologicalanalysisoftranscatheterversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacement AT sandhulakhbir biasestimationinstudydesignametaepidemiologicalanalysisoftranscatheterversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacement AT urbachdavidrobert biasestimationinstudydesignametaepidemiologicalanalysisoftranscatheterversussurgicalaorticvalvereplacement |