• O Kuss, T Legler, and J Börgermann.
• Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Halle-Wittenberg, 06097 Halle (Saale), Germany. oliver.kuss@medizin.uni-halle.de
• J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Oct 1;64(10):1076-84.

ObjectiveAnalyses 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 SettingIn 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."ResultsFor all clinical outcomes, the estimated differences in "meta-odds ratios" were below an absolute value of 0.15, all confidence intervals included the null.ConclusionsIn 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.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

9 keywords...

hide…