Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case-Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.
BACKGROUND:Observational studies are increasingly being used for assessing therapeutic interventions. Case-control studies are generally considered to have greater risk of bias than cohort studies, but we lack evidence of differences in effect estimates between the 2 study types. We aimed to compare...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2016-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4861326?pdf=render |
id |
doaj-2473e6eb2dbb498584589ce7c69b8f5e |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-2473e6eb2dbb498584589ce7c69b8f5e2020-11-24T22:20:04ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032016-01-01115e015487710.1371/journal.pone.0154877Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case-Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.Amy LanzaPhilippe RavaudCarolina RiverosAgnes DechartresBACKGROUND:Observational studies are increasingly being used for assessing therapeutic interventions. Case-control studies are generally considered to have greater risk of bias than cohort studies, but we lack evidence of differences in effect estimates between the 2 study types. We aimed to compare estimates between cohort and case-control studies in meta-analyses of observational studies of therapeutic interventions by using a meta-epidemiological study. METHODS:We used a random sample of meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions published in 2013 that included both cohort and case-control studies assessing a binary outcome. For each meta-analysis, the ratio of estimates (RE) was calculated by comparing the estimate in case-control studies to that in cohort studies. Then, we used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate a combined RE across meta-analyses. An RE < 1 indicated that case-control studies yielded larger estimates than cohort studies. RESULTS:The final analysis included 23 meta-analyses: 138 cohort and 133 case-control studies. Treatment effect estimates did not significantly differ between case-control and cohort studies (combined RE 0.97 [95% CI 0.86-1.09]). Heterogeneity was low, with between-meta-analysis variance τ2 = 0.0049. Estimates did not differ between case-control and prospective or retrospective cohort studies (RE = 1.05 [95% CI 0.96-1.15] and RE = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83-1.19], respectively). Sensitivity analysis of studies reporting adjusted estimates also revealed no significant difference (RE = 1.03 [95% CI 0.91-1.16]). Heterogeneity was also low for these analyses. CONCLUSION:We found no significant difference in treatment effect estimates between case-control and cohort studies assessing therapeutic interventions.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4861326?pdf=render |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Amy Lanza Philippe Ravaud Carolina Riveros Agnes Dechartres |
spellingShingle |
Amy Lanza Philippe Ravaud Carolina Riveros Agnes Dechartres Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case-Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Amy Lanza Philippe Ravaud Carolina Riveros Agnes Dechartres |
author_sort |
Amy Lanza |
title |
Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case-Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. |
title_short |
Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case-Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. |
title_full |
Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case-Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case-Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case-Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. |
title_sort |
comparison of estimates between cohort and case-control studies in meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions: a meta-epidemiological study. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2016-01-01 |
description |
BACKGROUND:Observational studies are increasingly being used for assessing therapeutic interventions. Case-control studies are generally considered to have greater risk of bias than cohort studies, but we lack evidence of differences in effect estimates between the 2 study types. We aimed to compare estimates between cohort and case-control studies in meta-analyses of observational studies of therapeutic interventions by using a meta-epidemiological study. METHODS:We used a random sample of meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions published in 2013 that included both cohort and case-control studies assessing a binary outcome. For each meta-analysis, the ratio of estimates (RE) was calculated by comparing the estimate in case-control studies to that in cohort studies. Then, we used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate a combined RE across meta-analyses. An RE < 1 indicated that case-control studies yielded larger estimates than cohort studies. RESULTS:The final analysis included 23 meta-analyses: 138 cohort and 133 case-control studies. Treatment effect estimates did not significantly differ between case-control and cohort studies (combined RE 0.97 [95% CI 0.86-1.09]). Heterogeneity was low, with between-meta-analysis variance τ2 = 0.0049. Estimates did not differ between case-control and prospective or retrospective cohort studies (RE = 1.05 [95% CI 0.96-1.15] and RE = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83-1.19], respectively). Sensitivity analysis of studies reporting adjusted estimates also revealed no significant difference (RE = 1.03 [95% CI 0.91-1.16]). Heterogeneity was also low for these analyses. CONCLUSION:We found no significant difference in treatment effect estimates between case-control and cohort studies assessing therapeutic interventions. |
url |
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4861326?pdf=render |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT amylanza comparisonofestimatesbetweencohortandcasecontrolstudiesinmetaanalysesoftherapeuticinterventionsametaepidemiologicalstudy AT philipperavaud comparisonofestimatesbetweencohortandcasecontrolstudiesinmetaanalysesoftherapeuticinterventionsametaepidemiologicalstudy AT carolinariveros comparisonofestimatesbetweencohortandcasecontrolstudiesinmetaanalysesoftherapeuticinterventionsametaepidemiologicalstudy AT agnesdechartres comparisonofestimatesbetweencohortandcasecontrolstudiesinmetaanalysesoftherapeuticinterventionsametaepidemiologicalstudy |
_version_ |
1725777065558409216 |