Treatments effects from randomized trials and propensity score analyses were similar in similar populations in an example from cardiac surgery
Treatments effects from randomized trials and propensity score analyses were similar in similar populations in an example from cardiac surgery
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.005
复制
发表时间：
2011-10-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Boegermann, J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kuss, O.;Legler, T.;Boegermann, J.
目的：比较随机与非随机临床试验的分析受到研究人群通常不同的事实的影响。我们的目的是比较随机临床试验（RCTs）和倾向评分（PS）分析在类似population.Study设计和设置：在一个系统的审查，我们“荟萃匹配”的RCTs和PS分析，比较了关闭和泵技术在冠状动脉旁路移植术。“元混杂因素”总结为“元倾向评分”，并用于“元匹配”。我们比较了随机对照试验和PS分析的治疗效果，在这个“荟萃匹配”人群中，10个先前定义的二元临床结局作为“荟萃优势比”的差异。“结果：对于所有的临床结果，估计的差异“荟萃优势比”低于0.15的绝对值，所有的置信区间包括null.Conclusions：在我们的例子中，非体外循环与体外循环手术从随机对照试验和PS分析的治疗效果是非常相似的“荟萃匹配”的研究人群，表明只有一个小的剩余偏见是存在于PS分析。(C)2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Objective: Analyses comparing randomized to nonrandomized clinical trials suffer from the fact that the study populations are usually different. We aimed for a comparison of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and propensity score (PS) analyses in similar populations.Study Design and Setting: In a systematic review, we "meta-matched" RCTs and PS analyses that compared the off- and the on-pump technique in coronary artery bypass grafting. "Meta-confounders" were summarized in a "meta-propensity score" and were used for "meta-matching." We compared treatment effects between RCTs and PS analyses for 10 previously defined binary clinical outcomes in this "meta-matched" population as differences in "meta-odds ratios."Results: For all clinical outcomes, the estimated differences in "meta-odds ratios" were below an absolute value of 0.15, all confidence intervals included the null.Conclusions: In our example, treatment effects of off-pump versus on-pump surgery from RCTs and PS analyses were very similar in a "meta-matched" population of studies, indicating that only a small remaining bias is present in PS analyses. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.