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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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