skip to content
Observational studies : empirical evidence of their contributions to comparative effectiveness reviews Preview this item
ClosePreview this item
Checking...

Observational studies : empirical evidence of their contributions to comparative effectiveness reviews

Author: Jennifer C Seida; Donna M Dryden; Lisa Hartling; University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center,
Publisher: Rockville, MD : Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 2013.
Series: Research white paper.; AHRQ publication, no. 14-EHC002-EF.
Edition/Format:   eBook : Document : National government publication : English
Summary:
INTRODUCTION: Although observational studies are increasingly being used to address gaps in the evidence from randomized controlled trials, the effect they have on the results and conclusions of systematic reviews is unclear. Our objectives were to evaluate: (1) how often observational studies are searched for and included in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs); (2) the rationale for including or excluding  Read more...
Rating:

(not yet rated) 0 with reviews - Be the first.

Subjects
More like this

Find a copy online

Links to this item

Find a copy in the library

&AllPage.SpinnerRetrieving; Finding libraries that hold this item...

Details

Material Type: Document, Government publication, National government publication, Internet resource
Document Type: Internet Resource, Computer File
All Authors / Contributors: Jennifer C Seida; Donna M Dryden; Lisa Hartling; University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center,
OCLC Number: 878098589
Notes: December 2013.
Title from PDF title page.
Description: 1 online resource (1 PDF file (various pagings)).
Series Title: Research white paper.; AHRQ publication, no. 14-EHC002-EF.
Responsibility: investigators, Jennifer C Seida, Donna M. Dryden, Lisa Hartling.

Abstract:

INTRODUCTION: Although observational studies are increasingly being used to address gaps in the evidence from randomized controlled trials, the effect they have on the results and conclusions of systematic reviews is unclear. Our objectives were to evaluate: (1) how often observational studies are searched for and included in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs); (2) the rationale for including or excluding observational studies; (3) how data from observational studies are appraised, analyzed, and graded; and (4) the impact of observational studies on the strength of evidence (SOE) and overall conclusions. METHODS: In June 2013 we searched the Effective Health Care Program Web site for final reports of CERs. One reviewer screened titles, abstracts, and Key Questions for CERs that examined a therapeutic or preventive intervention provided at an individual patient level. We selected a 25 percent sample of the most recent eligible CERs. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. We extracted the number and type of study designs included and the approaches to quality assessment, presentation of results, and grading the SOE. We identified all comparisons for which both trials and observational studies provided data, and evaluated whether observational studies had an impact on the SOE and conclusions. We applied an RCT filter to the searches to determine the impact on search yield. RESULTS: From 129 records we identified 88 eligible CERs. Our final sample included 23 CERs published since November 2012. EPCs 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. We identified 78 comparisons from 12 CERs for which both trials and observational studies provided evidence; observational studies had an impact on SOE and conclusions for 19 (24 percent) of the comparisons. There was considerable diversity across the CERs regarding decisions to include or exclude observational studies, the study designs considered, and the approaches used to appraise, synthesize, and grade the SOE. Applying an RCT filter reduced the search yield by 65 percent (range 39 to 92 percent). DISCUSSION: Reporting guidelines and methods guidance relating to observational studies are needed in order to ensure clarity and consistency across Evidence-based Practice Centers. It was not always clear that the inclusion of observational studies added value in light of the additional resources needed to search for, select, appraise, and analyze such studies.

Reviews

User-contributed reviews
Retrieving GoodReads reviews...
Retrieving DOGObooks reviews...

Tags

Be the first.
Confirm this request

You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway.

Linked Data


Primary Entity

<http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/878098589> # Observational studies : empirical evidence of their contributions to comparative effectiveness reviews
    a schema:CreativeWork, schema:MediaObject, schema:Book ;
   library:oclcnum "878098589" ;
   library:placeOfPublication <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/countries/mdu> ;
   schema:about <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Topic/observational_studies_as_topic> ; # Observational Studies as Topic
   schema:about <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Topic/review_literature_as_topic> ; # Review Literature as Topic
   schema:about <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Topic/comparative_effectiveness_research> ; # Comparative Effectiveness Research
   schema:author <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Person/hartling_lisa> ; # Lisa Hartling
   schema:author <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Organization/university_of_alberta_evidence_based_practice_center> ; # University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center,
   schema:author <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Person/dryden_donna_m> ; # Donna M. Dryden
   schema:author <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Person/seida_jennifer_c> ; # Jennifer C. Seida
   schema:bookFormat schema:EBook ;
   schema:datePublished "2013" ;
   schema:description "INTRODUCTION: Although observational studies are increasingly being used to address gaps in the evidence from randomized controlled trials, the effect they have on the results and conclusions of systematic reviews is unclear. Our objectives were to evaluate: (1) how often observational studies are searched for and included in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs); (2) the rationale for including or excluding observational studies; (3) how data from observational studies are appraised, analyzed, and graded; and (4) the impact of observational studies on the strength of evidence (SOE) and overall conclusions. METHODS: In June 2013 we searched the Effective Health Care Program Web site for final reports of CERs. One reviewer screened titles, abstracts, and Key Questions for CERs that examined a therapeutic or preventive intervention provided at an individual patient level. We selected a 25 percent sample of the most recent eligible CERs. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. We extracted the number and type of study designs included and the approaches to quality assessment, presentation of results, and grading the SOE. We identified all comparisons for which both trials and observational studies provided data, and evaluated whether observational studies had an impact on the SOE and conclusions. We applied an RCT filter to the searches to determine the impact on search yield. RESULTS: From 129 records we identified 88 eligible CERs. Our final sample included 23 CERs published since November 2012. EPCs 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. We identified 78 comparisons from 12 CERs for which both trials and observational studies provided evidence; observational studies had an impact on SOE and conclusions for 19 (24 percent) of the comparisons. There was considerable diversity across the CERs regarding decisions to include or exclude observational studies, the study designs considered, and the approaches used to appraise, synthesize, and grade the SOE. Applying an RCT filter reduced the search yield by 65 percent (range 39 to 92 percent). DISCUSSION: Reporting guidelines and methods guidance relating to observational studies are needed in order to ensure clarity and consistency across Evidence-based Practice Centers. It was not always clear that the inclusion of observational studies added value in light of the additional resources needed to search for, select, appraise, and analyze such studies."@en ;
   schema:exampleOfWork <http://worldcat.org/entity/work/id/1873366545> ;
   schema:genre "Government publication"@en ;
   schema:genre "National government publication"@en ;
   schema:inLanguage "en" ;
   schema:isPartOf <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Series/research_white_paper> ; # Research white paper.
   schema:isPartOf <http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Series/ahrq_publication> ; # AHRQ publication ;
   schema:name "Observational studies : empirical evidence of their contributions to comparative effectiveness reviews"@en ;
   schema:productID "878098589" ;
   schema:url <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK174900/> ;
   schema:url <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK174900> ;
   wdrs:describedby <http://www.worldcat.org/title/-/oclc/878098589> ;
    .


Related Entities

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Organization/university_of_alberta_evidence_based_practice_center> # University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center,
    a schema:Organization ;
   schema:name "University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center," ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Person/dryden_donna_m> # Donna M. Dryden
    a schema:Person ;
   schema:familyName "Dryden" ;
   schema:givenName "Donna M." ;
   schema:name "Donna M. Dryden" ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Person/hartling_lisa> # Lisa Hartling
    a schema:Person ;
   schema:familyName "Hartling" ;
   schema:givenName "Lisa" ;
   schema:name "Lisa Hartling" ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Person/seida_jennifer_c> # Jennifer C. Seida
    a schema:Person ;
   schema:familyName "Seida" ;
   schema:givenName "Jennifer C." ;
   schema:name "Jennifer C. Seida" ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Series/ahrq_publication> # AHRQ publication ;
    a bgn:PublicationSeries ;
   schema:hasPart <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/878098589> ; # Observational studies : empirical evidence of their contributions to comparative effectiveness reviews
   schema:name "AHRQ publication ;" ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Series/research_white_paper> # Research white paper.
    a bgn:PublicationSeries ;
   schema:hasPart <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/878098589> ; # Observational studies : empirical evidence of their contributions to comparative effectiveness reviews
   schema:name "Research white paper." ;
   schema:name "Research white paper" ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Topic/comparative_effectiveness_research> # Comparative Effectiveness Research
    a schema:Intangible ;
   schema:name "Comparative Effectiveness Research"@en ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Topic/observational_studies_as_topic> # Observational Studies as Topic
    a schema:Intangible ;
   schema:name "Observational Studies as Topic"@en ;
    .

<http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/1873366545#Topic/review_literature_as_topic> # Review Literature as Topic
    a schema:Intangible ;
   schema:name "Review Literature as Topic"@en ;
    .

<http://www.worldcat.org/title/-/oclc/878098589>
    a genont:InformationResource, genont:ContentTypeGenericResource ;
   schema:about <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/878098589> ; # Observational studies : empirical evidence of their contributions to comparative effectiveness reviews
   schema:dateModified "2018-03-10" ;
   void:inDataset <http://purl.oclc.org/dataset/WorldCat> ;
    .


Content-negotiable representations

Close Window

Please sign in to WorldCat 

Don't have an account? You can easily create a free account.