Display options
Cite
Seida J, Dryden DM, Hartling L. The value of including observational studies in systematic reviews was unclear: a descriptive study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1343-52doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.014.
Seida, J., Dryden, D. M., & Hartling, L. (2014). The value of including observational studies in systematic reviews was unclear: a descriptive study. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 67(12), 1343-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.014
Seida, Jennifer, et al. "The value of including observational studies in systematic reviews was unclear: a descriptive study." Journal of clinical epidemiology vol. 67,12 (2014): 1343-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.014
Seida J, Dryden DM, Hartling L. The value of including observational studies in systematic reviews was unclear: a descriptive study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;67(12):1343-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.014. Epub 2014 Sep 22. PMID: 25248829.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;67(12):1343-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.014. Epub 2014 Sep 22.

The value of including observational studies in systematic reviews was unclear: a descriptive study.

Journal of clinical epidemiology

Jennifer Seida, Donna M Dryden, Lisa Hartling

Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence and the University of Alberta Evidence-Based Practice Center, University of Alberta, 4-472 ECHA, 11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5G 1C9.
  2. Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence and the University of Alberta Evidence-Based Practice Center, University of Alberta, 4-472 ECHA, 11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5G 1C9. Electronic address: [email protected].

PMID: 25248829 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.014

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate (1) how often observational studies are included in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs); (2) the rationale for including observational studies; (3) how data from observational studies are appraised, analyzed, and graded; and (4) the impact of observational studies on strength of evidence (SOE) and conclusions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study of 23 CERs published through the Effective Health Care Program of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

RESULTS: Authors searched for observational studies in 20 CERs, of which 18 included a median of 11 (interquartile range, 2-31) studies. Sixteen CERs incorporated the observational studies in their SOE assessments. Seventy-eight comparisons from 12 CERs included evidence from both trials and observational studies; observational studies had an impact on SOE and conclusions for 19 (24%) comparisons. There was diversity across the CERs regarding decisions to include observational studies; study designs considered; and approaches used to appraise, synthesize, and grade SOE.

CONCLUSION: Reporting and methods guidance are needed to ensure clarity and consistency in how observational studies are incorporated in CERs. It was not always clear that observational studies added value in light of the additional resources needed to search for, select, appraise, and analyze such studies.

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Comparative effectiveness; GRADE; Observational studies; Quality of evidence; Strength of evidence; Systematic reviews

MeSH terms

Publication Types