Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case–Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Amy Lanza, Philippe Ravaud, Carolina Riveros and Agnes Dechartres

PLOS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, issue 5, 1-12

Abstract: Background: Observational studies are increasingly being used for assessing therapeutic interventions. Case–control studies are generally considered to have greater risk of bias than cohort studies, but we lack evidence of differences in effect estimates between the 2 study types. We aimed to compare estimates between cohort and case–control studies in meta-analyses of observational studies of therapeutic interventions by using a meta-epidemiological study. Methods: We used a random sample of meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions published in 2013 that included both cohort and case–control studies assessing a binary outcome. For each meta-analysis, the ratio of estimates (RE) was calculated by comparing the estimate in case–control studies to that in cohort studies. Then, we used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate a combined RE across meta-analyses. An RE

Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154877 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 54877&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0154877

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154877

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().