Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement
Youn, Saerom, Wong, Shannon Avery, Chrystoja, Caitlin, Tomlinson, George, Wijeysundera, Harindra C., Bell, Chaim M., Gagliardi, Anna R., Baxter, Nancy N., Takata, Julie, Sandhu, Lakhbir, and Urbach, David Robert (2021) Bias estimation in study design: a meta-epidemiological analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement. BMC Surgery, 21. 285.
|
PDF (Published Version)
- Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (2MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background: Paucity of RCTs of non-drug technologies lead to widespread dependence on non-randomized studies. Relationship between nonrandomized study design attributes and biased estimates of treatment effects are poorly understood. Our purpose was to estimate the bias associated with specific nonrandomized study attributes among studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis.
Results: We included 6 RCTs and 87 nonrandomized studies. Surgical risk scores were similar for comparison groups in RCTs, but were higher for patients having transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonrandomized studies. Nonrandomized studies underestimated the benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with RCTs. For example, nonrandomized studies without adjustment estimated a higher risk of postoperative mortality for transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (OR 1.43 [95% CI 1.26 to 1.62]) than high quality RCTs (OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.54 to 1.11). Nonrandomized studies using propensity score matching (OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.85 to 1.52]) and regression modelling (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.57 to 0.81]) to adjust results estimated treatment effects closer to high quality RCTs. Nonrandomized studies describing losses to follow-up estimated treatment effects that were significantly closer to high quality RCT than nonrandomized studies that did not.
Conclusion: Studies with different attributes produce different estimates of treatment effects. Study design attributes related to the completeness of follow-up may explain biased treatment estimates in nonrandomized studies, as in the case of aortic valve replacement where high-risk patients were preferentially selected for the newer (transcatheter) procedure.
| Item ID: | 69974 |
|---|---|
| Item Type: | Article (Research - C1) |
| ISSN: | 1471-2482 |
| Keywords: | Aortic stenosis, Bias, Meta-epidemiological, Meta-regression, Non drug health technologies, Nonrandomized studies, Randomized controlled trials, SAVR, Study design attributes, TAVI |
| Copyright Information: | © The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
| Date Deposited: | 28 Apr 2022 01:45 |
| Downloads: |
Total: 655 Last 12 Months: 4 |
| More Statistics |
Actions (Repository Staff Only)
 |
Item Control Page |