42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials : A Systematic Review

      research-article
      , BSc(Hons) 1 , 2 , , , PhD 1 , 2 , , PhD 1 , 2 , , ScD 3 , 6 , 7 , , MD, PhD 4 , 5 , , BExPhys 1 , , PhD 1 , 2 , , BSc(Hons) 2 , , BSc(Hons) 2 , , MD, ScD 6 , 7 , 8 , , PhD 6 , 7 , , MD, PhD 9 , 10 , 11 , , MD, PhD 7 , 12 , , MD 13 , , PhD 6 , 14 , , PhD 15 , 16 , , PhD 17 , , MD, ScD 18 , , PhD 19 , 20 , 21 , , PhD 22 , , PhD 23 , , MD, DrPh 6 , 7 , 8 , , PhD 24 , , PhD 1 , 2
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          How are studies that explicitly aim to emulate a target trial reported?

          Findings

          In this systematic review of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial, reporting was inconsistent, and studies often did not report all necessary information related to the emulation of the target trial.

          Meaning

          Inconsistent reporting of studies that explicitly aim to emulate a target trial may impair the appraisal, synthesis, and implementation of study findings.

          Abstract

          This systematic review assesses the reporting of observational studies that explicitly aimed to emulate target trials, hypothetical randomized trials that could answer causal questions of interest.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Observational (nonexperimental) studies that aim to emulate a randomized trial (ie, the target trial) are increasingly informing medical and policy decision-making, but it is unclear how these studies are reported in the literature. Consistent reporting is essential for quality appraisal, evidence synthesis, and translation of evidence to policy and practice.

          Objective

          To assess the reporting of observational studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial.

          Evidence Review

          We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for observational studies published between March 2012 and October 2022 that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial of a health or medical intervention. Two reviewers double-screened and -extracted data on study characteristics, key predefined components of the target trial protocol and its emulation (eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, treatment assignment, outcome[s], follow-up, causal contrast[s], and analysis plan), and other items related to the target trial emulation.

          Findings

          A total of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial were included. These studies included 26 subfields of medicine, and 168 (84%) were published from January 2020 to October 2022. The aim to emulate a target trial was explicit in 70 study titles (35%). Forty-three studies (22%) reported use of a published reporting guideline (eg, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). Eighty-five studies (43%) did not describe all key items of how the target trial was emulated and 113 (57%) did not describe the protocol of the target trial and its emulation.

          Conclusion and Relevance

          In this systematic review of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial, reporting of how the target trial was emulated was inconsistent. A reporting guideline for studies explicitly aiming to emulate a target trial may improve the reporting of the target trial protocols and other aspects of these emulation attempts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references280

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                27 September 2023
                September 2023
                27 September 2023
                : 6
                : 9
                : e2336023
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                [2 ]Centre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia
                [3 ]Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                [4 ]Oxford Population Health, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [5 ]Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
                [6 ]CAUSALab, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [7 ]Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [8 ]Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [9 ]Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
                [10 ]Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
                [11 ]Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
                [12 ]RTI Health Solutions, Barcelona, Spain
                [13 ]Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
                [14 ]Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [15 ]Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
                [16 ]Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
                [17 ]School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [18 ]Division of Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Medicine, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [19 ]Department of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
                [20 ]NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Bristol, United Kingdom
                [21 ]Health Data Research UK South-West, Bristol, United Kingdom
                [22 ]Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
                [23 ]Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
                [24 ]University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: August 22, 2023.
                Published: September 27, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36023
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Hansford HJ et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Harrison J. Hansford, BSc(Hons), School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Wallace Wurth Building (C27), 2052 Sydney, Australia ( h.hansford@ 123456unsw.edu.au ).
                Author Contributions: Mr Hansford and Dr McAuley had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Hansford, Cashin, Jones, Swanson, Islam, Golub, Schneeweiss, Sterne, Stuart, Hernan, Lee, McAuley.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Hansford, Cashin, Jones, Swanson, Islam, Douglas, Rizzo, Devonshire, Williams, Dahabreh, Dickerman, Egger, Garcia-Albeniz, Lodi, Moreno Betancur, Pearson, Sharp, Lee, McAuley.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Hansford, Cashin, Egger, Golub, Moreno Betancur, McAuley.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Hansford, Schneeweiss, Stuart, McAuley.
                Obtained funding: Egger.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Islam, Williams, Lee, McAuley.
                Supervision: Cashin, Jones, Swanson, Schneeweiss, Hernan, Lee, McAuley.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Mr Hansford reported receiving grants from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Neuroscience Research Australia during the conduct of the study. Dr Dahabreh reported receiving grants to the institution from Sanofi and consulting fees from Moderna outside the submitted work. Dr Dickerman reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the conduct of the study. Prof Egger reported receiving grants from Swiss National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr Garcia-Albeniz reported being employed by RTI Health Solutions. Dr Schneeweiss reported receiving consulting fees from Aetion, Inc, and grants from UCB Pharma, Takeda, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work. Dr Stuart reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr Hernán reported receiving grants from NIH during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees from ProPublica, Cytel, and ADIA Lab outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: There is no specific funding for this study. Mr Hansford was supported by an Australian NHMRC Postgraduate Scholarship and a PhD Top-Up Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia and was a Neuroscience Research Australia PhD Pearl sponsored by Mrs Sandra Salteri. Dr Cashin was supported by an Australian NHMRC Investigator Grant (identification No. 2010088). Dr Moreno Betancur was supported by an Australian NHMRC Investigator Grant (identification No. 2009572). Dr McAuley was supported by an Australian NHMRC Investigator Grant (identification No. 2010128). Dr Dahabreh was supported by a grant from the NIH (grant No. R00 CA248335). Prof Egger was supported by grants from the NIH (grants Nos. R01 AI152772-01 and 5U01-AI069924-05) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (32FP30-174281). Dr Islam was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (grant No. HDRUK2022.0313) and the UK Office for National Statistics (No. 2002563). Dr Hernán was supported by a grant from the NIH (grant No. R37 AI102634). Dr Lodi was supported by the Providence/Boston Center for AIDS Research (grant No. P30AI042853).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Additional Contributions: We acknowledge Nia Roberts, MSc, FD, outreach librarian and information specialist at the University of Oxford for assistance designing the literature search. She was not compensated for her time outside of her salary.
                Article
                zoi231035
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36023
                10534275
                37755828
                d80dbb1c-7ffa-4535-a3b4-388475184ae8
                Copyright 2023 Hansford HJ et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 9 June 2023
                : 22 August 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Statistics and Research Methods

                Comments

                Comment on this article