Observational studies and evidence-based practice: Can't live with them, can't live without them
Stroup et al1 define an observational study as “an etiologic or effectiveness study using data from an existing database, a cross-sectional study, a case series, a case-control design, a design with historical controls, or a cohort design.” Generally, there are several major problems with the use of observational studies in systematic reviews of evidence for a treatment procedure. The first is that since all observational studies lack randomization, true assessment of efficacy is not possible. Furthermore, it is not possible to determine what biases may have influenced the results, both from the provider and the patient. Analytically, results from observational studies either cannot be pooled for a meta-analyses or can be done so only with caution.
No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.
1.. 1.Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al.Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–2012. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
2.. 2.Radford MJ, Foody JM. How do observational studies expand the evidence base for therapy?. JAMA. 2001;286:1228–1230. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
4.. 4.Ray JG. Evidence in upheaval. Incorporating observational data into clinical practice. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:249–254. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
5.. 5.Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268:2420–2425. MEDLINE
6.. 6.Greenhalgh T. Assessing the methodological quality of published papers. BMJ. 1997;315:305–308.
7.. 7.Bland CJ, Meurer LN, Maldonado G. A systematic approach to conducting a non-statistical meta-analysis of research literature. Acad Med. 1995;70:642–650. MEDLINE
8.. 8.Kramer MS, Shapiro SH. Scientific challenges in the application of randomized trials. JAMA. 1984;252:2739–2745. MEDLINE
9.. 9.Ioannidis JPA, Haidich A, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, et al.Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized Studies. JAMA. 2001;286:821–830. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
10.. 10.Benson K, Hartz A. A comparison of observational and randomized, controlled trials. New Eng J Med. 2000;342:1878–1886. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
11.. 11.Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. New Eng J Med. 2000;342:1887–1892. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
12.. 12.LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad , et al.Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled Trials. New Eng J Med. 1997;337:536–542. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
UCLA School of Dentistry, Division of Public Health Dentistry and the Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center, RAND and the Southern California University of Health Sciences, USA
ABSTRACT + REFS