Sally Yaacoub, Raphael Porcher, Anna Pellat, Hillary Bonnet, Viet-Thi Tran, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron
{"title":"Characteristics of non-randomised studies of drug treatments: cross sectional study.","authors":"Sally Yaacoub, Raphael Porcher, Anna Pellat, Hillary Bonnet, Viet-Thi Tran, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron","doi":"10.1136/bmjmed-2024-000932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong></p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the characteristics of comparative non-randomised studies that assess the effectiveness or safety, or both, of drug treatments.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross sectional study.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Medline (Ovid), for reports published from 1 June 2022 to 31 August 2022.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: </strong>Reports of comparative non-randomised studies that assessed the effectiveness or safety, or both, of drug treatments were included. A randomly ordered sample was screened until 200 eligible reports were found. Data on general characteristics, reporting characteristics, and time point alignment were extracted, and possible related biases, with a piloted form inspired by reporting guidelines and the target trial emulation framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 462 reports of non-randomised studies identified, 262 studies were excluded (32% had no comparator and 25% did not account for confounding factors). To assess time point alignment and possible related biases, three study time points were considered: eligibility, treatment assignment, and start of follow-up. Of the 200 included reports, 70% had one possible bias, related to: inclusion of prevalent users in 24%, post-treatment eligibility criteria in 32%, immortal time periods in 42%, and classification of treatment in 23%. Reporting was incomplete, and only 2% reported all six of the key elements considered: eligibility criteria (87%), description of treatment (46%), deviations in treatment (27%), causal contrast (11%), primary outcomes (90%), and confounding factors (88%). Most studies used routinely collected data (67%), but only 7% reported using validation studies of the codes or algorithms applied to select the population. Only 7% of reports mentioned registration on a trial registry and 3% had an available protocol.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings of the study suggest that although access to real world evidence could be valuable, the robustness and transparency of non-randomised studies need to be improved.</p>","PeriodicalId":72433,"journal":{"name":"BMJ medicine","volume":"3 1","pages":"e000932"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11579539/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2024-000932","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract:
Objective: To examine the characteristics of comparative non-randomised studies that assess the effectiveness or safety, or both, of drug treatments.
Design: Cross sectional study.
Data sources: Medline (Ovid), for reports published from 1 June 2022 to 31 August 2022.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Reports of comparative non-randomised studies that assessed the effectiveness or safety, or both, of drug treatments were included. A randomly ordered sample was screened until 200 eligible reports were found. Data on general characteristics, reporting characteristics, and time point alignment were extracted, and possible related biases, with a piloted form inspired by reporting guidelines and the target trial emulation framework.
Results: Of 462 reports of non-randomised studies identified, 262 studies were excluded (32% had no comparator and 25% did not account for confounding factors). To assess time point alignment and possible related biases, three study time points were considered: eligibility, treatment assignment, and start of follow-up. Of the 200 included reports, 70% had one possible bias, related to: inclusion of prevalent users in 24%, post-treatment eligibility criteria in 32%, immortal time periods in 42%, and classification of treatment in 23%. Reporting was incomplete, and only 2% reported all six of the key elements considered: eligibility criteria (87%), description of treatment (46%), deviations in treatment (27%), causal contrast (11%), primary outcomes (90%), and confounding factors (88%). Most studies used routinely collected data (67%), but only 7% reported using validation studies of the codes or algorithms applied to select the population. Only 7% of reports mentioned registration on a trial registry and 3% had an available protocol.
Conclusions: The findings of the study suggest that although access to real world evidence could be valuable, the robustness and transparency of non-randomised studies need to be improved.