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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Amy Lanza, Philippe Ravaud, Carolina Riveros, Agnes Dechartres
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