Effect estimates in randomized trials and observational studies: comparing apples with apples

Sara Lodi*, Andrew Phillips, Jens Lundgren, Roger Logan, Shweta Sharma, Stephen R Cole, Abdel Babiker, Matthew Law, Haitao Chu, Dana Byrne, Andrzej Horban, Jonathan A C Sterne, Kholoud Porter, Caroline Sabin, Dominique Costagliola, Sophie Abgrall, John Gill, Giota Touloumi, Antonio G Pacheco, Ard van SighemPeter Reiss, Heiner C Bucher, Alexandra Montoliu Giménez, Inmaculada Jarrin, Linda Wittkop, Laurence Meyer, Santiago Perez-Hoyos, Amy Justice, James D Neaton, Miguel A Hernán, INSIGHT START Study Group and the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration

*Corresponding author af dette arbejde

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

77 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

Effect estimates from randomized trials and observational studies may not be directly comparable because of differences in study design, other than randomization, and in data analysis. We propose a three-step procedure to facilitate meaningful comparisons of effect estimates from randomized trials and observational studies: 1) harmonization of the study protocol (eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, outcome, start and end of follow-up, causal contrast) so that the studies target the same causal effect, 2) harmonization of the data analysis to estimate the causal effect, and 3) sensitivity analyses to investigate the impact of discrepancies that could not be accounted for in the harmonization process. To illustrate our approach, we compared estimates of the effect of immediate with deferred initiation of antiretroviral therapy in individuals positive to the human immunodeficiency virus from the START randomized trial and the observational HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftAmerican Journal of Epidemiology
Vol/bind188
Udgave nummer8
Sider (fra-til)1569–1577
Antal sider9
ISSN0002-9262
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2019

Citationsformater