 Advertisement | ||||||||
 | ||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
From the Clinical Trials and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece (all authors)
Correspondence to: Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, Professor and Chairman, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina 45110, Greece; fax +3026510-97867; jioannid{at}cc.uoi.gr
Background: Information on major harms of medical interventions comes primarily from epidemiologic studies performed after licensing and marketing. Comparison with data from large-scale randomized trials is occasionally feasible. We compared evidence from randomized trials with that from epidemiologic studies to determine whether they give different estimates of risk for important harms of medical interventions.
Methods: We targeted well-defined, specific harms of various medical interventions for which data were already available from large-scale randomized trials (> 4000 subjects). Nonrandomized studies involving at least 4000 subjects addressing these same harms were retrieved through a search of MEDLINE. We compared the relative risks and absolute risk differences for specific harms in the randomized and nonrandomized studies.
Results: Eligible nonrandomized studies were found for 15 harms for which data were available from randomized trials addressing the same harms. Comparisons of relative risks between the study types were feasible for 13 of the 15 topics, and of absolute risk differences for 8 topics. The estimated increase in relative risk differed more than 2-fold between the randomized and nonrandomized studies for 7 (54%) of the 13 topics; the estimated increase in absolute risk differed more than 2-fold for 5 (62%) of the 8 topics. There was no clear predilection for randomized or nonrandomized studies to estimate greater relative risks, but usually (75% [6/8]) the randomized trials estimated larger absolute excess risks of harm than the nonrandomized studies did.
Interpretation: Nonrandomized studies are often conservative in estimating absolute risks of harms. It would be useful to compare and scrutinize the evidence on harms obtained from both randomized and nonrandomized studies.
Related Article
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. P. A. Ioannidis Adverse Events in Randomized Trials: Neglected, Restricted, Distorted, and Silenced Arch Intern Med, October 26, 2009; 169(19): 1737 - 1739. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. S. Gill, C. M. Bell, and P. A. Rochon Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Cholinesterase Inhibitors Due to Dissimilar Follow-up Periods--Reply Arch Intern Med, October 12, 2009; 169(18): 1724 - 1725. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P Vandenbroucke Author's Response Int. J. Epidemiol., April 17, 2009; (2009) dyp189v1. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P. Vandenbroucke and B. M. Psaty Benefits and Risks of Drug Treatments: How to Combine the Best Evidence on Benefits With the Best Data About Adverse Effects JAMA, November 26, 2008; 300(20): 2417 - 2419. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. A. Redelmeier MD MSHSR, D. Thiruchelvam MSc, and N. Daneman MD Delirium after elective surgery among elderly patients taking statins Can. Med. Assoc. J., September 23, 2008; 179(7): 645 - 652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. v. Elm, D. G Altman, M. Egger, S. J Pocock, P. C Gotzsche, J. P Vandenbroucke, and STROBE Initiative Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies BMJ, October 20, 2007; 335(7624): 806 - 808. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. von Elm, D. G. Altman, M. Egger, S. J. Pocock, P. C. Gotzsche, J. P. Vandenbroucke, and for the STROBE Initiative The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies Ann Intern Med, October 16, 2007; 147(8): 573 - 577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Egger, D. G Altman, J. P Vandenbroucke, and of the STROBE group Commentary: Strengthening the reporting of observational epidemiology the STROBE statement Int. J. Epidemiol., October 2, 2007; (2007) dym199v1. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. Vandenbroucke Analytic Approaches to Observational Studies With Treatment Selection Bias JAMA, May 16, 2007; 297(19): 2077 - 2078. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y Yazici and H Yazici A survey of inclusion of the time element when reporting adverse effects in randomised controlled trials of cyclo-oxygenase-2 and tumour necrosis factor {alpha} inhibitors Ann Rheum Dis, January 1, 2007; 66(1): 124 - 127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. S. Beattie and K. Karkouti Con: Aprotinin Has a Good Efficacy and Safety Profile Relative to Other Alternatives for Prevention of Bleeding in Cardiac Surgery Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2006; 103(6): 1360 - 1364. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Schneeweiss and D. H. Solomon Not-so-surprising findings. Can. Med. Assoc. J., July 18, 2006; 175(2): 171 - 172. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P.A. Ioannidis and P. Papanikolaou Not-so-surprising findings. Can. Med. Assoc. J., July 18, 2006; 175(2): 172 - 172. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. Vandenbroucke What is the best evidence for determining harms of medical treatment? Can. Med. Assoc. J., February 28, 2006; 174(5): 645 - 646. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Read all eLetters
| HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | HELP | SEARCH |
|
|||||
|
Copyright 1995-2006, Canadian Medical Association. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329
(e) 0820-3946 (p)
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association. |
|||||
