• Critical care medicine · Sep 2015

    Can We Trust Observational Studies Using Propensity Scores in the Critical Care Literature? A Systematic Comparison With Randomized Clinical Trials.

    • Georgios D Kitsios, Issa J Dahabreh, Sean Callahan, Jessica K Paulus, Anthony C Campagna, and James M Dargin.
    • 1Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 2Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI. 3Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI. 4Division Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Sleep, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 5Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. 6Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA.
    • Crit. Care Med. 2015 Sep 1; 43 (9): 1870-9.

    ObjectiveTo assess the degree of agreement between propensity score studies and randomized clinical trials in critical care research.Data SourcesPropensity score studies published in highly cited critical care or general medicine journals or included in a previous systematic review; corresponding randomized clinical trials included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews or published in PubMed.Study SelectionWe identified propensity score studies of the effects of therapeutic interventions on short- or long-term mortality. We systematically matched propensity score studies to randomized clinical trials based on patient selection criteria, interventions, and outcomes.Data ExtractionWe appraised the methods of included studies and extracted treatment effect estimates to compare the results of propensity score studies and randomized clinical trials. When multiple studies were identified for the same topic, we performed meta-analyses to obtain summary treatment effect estimates.Data SynthesisWe matched 21 propensity score studies with 58 randomized clinical trials in 18 distinct comparisons (median, one propensity score study and two randomized clinical trials per comparison), for short- and long-term mortality. We found one statistically significant difference between designs (hyperoncotic albumin vs crystalloid fluids) among these 18 comparisons. Propensity score studies did not produce systematically higher (or lower) treatment effect estimates compared with randomized clinical trials, but estimates from the two designs differed by more than 30% in one third of the comparisons examined. Observational studies in critical care met widely accepted methodological standards for propensity score analyses.ConclusionsAcross diverse critical care topics, propensity score studies published in high-impact journals produced results that were generally consistent with the findings of randomized clinical trials. However, caution is needed when interpreting propensity score studies because occasionally their results contradict those of randomized clinical trials and there is no reliable way to predict disagreements.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.