TY - JOUR
T1 - Observational evidence and strength of evidence domains
T2 - Case examples
AU - O'Neil, Maya
AU - Berkman, Nancy
AU - Hartling, Lisa
AU - Chang, Stephanie
AU - Anderson, Johanna
AU - Motu'apuaka, Makalapua
AU - Guise, Jeanne Marie
AU - McDonagh, Marian S.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Mark Helfand, Scientific Resource Center for the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program, for critical revision of the manuscript and Edwin Reid for editorial assistance. Project funded by AHRQ Effective Health Care Program.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 O'Neil et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
PY - 2014/4/23
Y1 - 2014/4/23
N2 - Background: Systematic reviews of healthcare interventions most often focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, certain circumstances warrant consideration of observational evidence, and such studies are increasingly being included as evidence in systematic reviews. Methods: To illustrate the use of observational evidence, we present case examples of systematic reviews in which observational evidence was considered as well as case examples of individual observational studies, and how they demonstrate various strength of evidence domains in accordance with current Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) methods guidance. Results: In the presented examples, observational evidence is used when RCTs are infeasible or raise ethical concerns, lack generalizability, or provide insufficient data. Individual study case examples highlight how observational evidence may fulfill required strength of evidence domains, such as study limitations (reduced risk of selection, detection, performance, and attrition); directness; consistency; precision; and reporting bias (publication, selective outcome reporting, and selective analysis reporting), as well as additional domains of dose-response association, plausible confounding that would decrease the observed effect, and strength of association (magnitude of effect).Conclusions: The cases highlighted in this paper demonstrate how observational studies may provide moderate to (rarely) high strength evidence in systematic reviews.
AB - Background: Systematic reviews of healthcare interventions most often focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, certain circumstances warrant consideration of observational evidence, and such studies are increasingly being included as evidence in systematic reviews. Methods: To illustrate the use of observational evidence, we present case examples of systematic reviews in which observational evidence was considered as well as case examples of individual observational studies, and how they demonstrate various strength of evidence domains in accordance with current Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) methods guidance. Results: In the presented examples, observational evidence is used when RCTs are infeasible or raise ethical concerns, lack generalizability, or provide insufficient data. Individual study case examples highlight how observational evidence may fulfill required strength of evidence domains, such as study limitations (reduced risk of selection, detection, performance, and attrition); directness; consistency; precision; and reporting bias (publication, selective outcome reporting, and selective analysis reporting), as well as additional domains of dose-response association, plausible confounding that would decrease the observed effect, and strength of association (magnitude of effect).Conclusions: The cases highlighted in this paper demonstrate how observational studies may provide moderate to (rarely) high strength evidence in systematic reviews.
KW - AHRQ Effective Health Care Program
KW - Case series
KW - Case-control studies
KW - Cross-sectional studies
KW - Integrative reviews
KW - Mixed methods reviews
KW - Non-randomized studies
KW - Observational studies
KW - Strength of evidence
KW - Systematic reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84907273489&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84907273489&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/2046-4053-3-35
DO - 10.1186/2046-4053-3-35
M3 - Article
C2 - 24758494
AN - SCOPUS:84907273489
SN - 2046-4053
VL - 3
JO - Systematic Reviews
JF - Systematic Reviews
IS - 1
M1 - 35
ER -