BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are thought to provide the most accurate estimation of "true" treatment effect. The relative quality of effect estimates derived from nonrandomized studies (nRCTs) remains unclear, particularly in surgery, where the obstacles to performing high-quality RCTs are compounded. We performed a meta-analysis of effect estimates of RCTs comparing surgical procedures for breast cancer relative to those of corresponding nRCTs. METHODS: English-language RCTs of breast cancer treatment in human patients published from 2003 to 2008 were identified in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. We identified nRCTs using the National Library of Medicine's "related articles" function and reference lists. Two reviewers conducted all steps of study selection. We included studies comparing 2 surgical arms for the treatment of breast cancer. Information on treatment efficacy estimates, expressed as relative risk (RR) for outcomes of interest in both the RCTs and nRCTs was extracted. RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs representing 10 topic/outcome combinations with comparable nRCTs. On visual inspection, 4 of 10 outcomes showed substantial differences in summary RR. The pooled RR estimates for RCTs versus nRCTs differed more than 2-fold in 2 of 10 outcomes and failed to demonstrate consistency of statistical differences in 3 of 10 cases. A statistically significant difference, as assessed by the z score, was not detected for any of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Randomized controlled trials comparing surgical procedures for breast cancer may demonstrate clinically relevant differences in effect estimates in 20%-40% of cases relative to those generated by nRCTs, depending on which metric is used.
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are thought to provide the most accurate estimation of "true" treatment effect. The relative quality of effect estimates derived from nonrandomized studies (nRCTs) remains unclear, particularly in surgery, where the obstacles to performing high-quality RCTs are compounded. We performed a meta-analysis of effect estimates of RCTs comparing surgical procedures for breast cancer relative to those of corresponding nRCTs. METHODS: English-language RCTs of breast cancer treatment in humanpatients published from 2003 to 2008 were identified in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. We identified nRCTs using the National Library of Medicine's "related articles" function and reference lists. Two reviewers conducted all steps of study selection. We included studies comparing 2 surgical arms for the treatment of breast cancer. Information on treatment efficacy estimates, expressed as relative risk (RR) for outcomes of interest in both the RCTs and nRCTs was extracted. RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs representing 10 topic/outcome combinations with comparable nRCTs. On visual inspection, 4 of 10 outcomes showed substantial differences in summary RR. The pooled RR estimates for RCTs versus nRCTs differed more than 2-fold in 2 of 10 outcomes and failed to demonstrate consistency of statistical differences in 3 of 10 cases. A statistically significant difference, as assessed by the z score, was not detected for any of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Randomized controlled trials comparing surgical procedures for breast cancer may demonstrate clinically relevant differences in effect estimates in 20%-40% of cases relative to those generated by nRCTs, depending on which metric is used.
Authors: Giorgio Zavagno; Gian Luca De Salvo; Giuliano Scalco; Fernando Bozza; Luca Barutta; Paola Del Bianco; Marco Renier; Carlo Racano; Paolo Carraro; Donato Nitti Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Peter McCulloch; Douglas G Altman; W Bruce Campbell; David R Flum; Paul Glasziou; John C Marshall; Jon Nicholl; Jeffrey K Aronson; Jeffrey S Barkun; Jane M Blazeby; Isabell C Boutron; W Bruce Campbell; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Jonathan A Cook; Patrick L Ergina; Liane S Feldman; David R Flum; Guy J Maddern; Jon Nicholl; Bournaby C Reeves; Christoph M Seiler; Steven M Strasberg; Jonathan L Meakins; Deborah Ashby; Nick Black; John Bunker; Martin Burton; Marion Campbell; Kalipso Chalkidou; Iain Chalmers; Marc de Leval; Jon Deeks; Patrick L Ergina; Adrian Grant; Muir Gray; Roger Greenhalgh; Milos Jenicek; Sean Kehoe; Richard Lilford; Peter Littlejohns; Yoon Loke; Rajan Madhock; Kim McPherson; Jonathan Meakins; Peter Rothwell; Bill Summerskill; David Taggart; Parris Tekkis; Matthew Thompson; Tom Treasure; Ulrich Trohler; Jan Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-09-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ann M Geiger; Soe Soe Thwin; Timothy L Lash; Diana S M Buist; Marianne N Prout; Feifei Wei; Terry S Field; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Floyd J Frost; Shelley M Enger; Rebecca A Silliman Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anthony Lucci; Linda Mackie McCall; Peter D Beitsch; Patrick W Whitworth; Douglas S Reintgen; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukumal Saha; Kelly K Hunt; Armando E Giuliano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David N Krag; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Ann M Brown; Seth P Harlow; Takamaru Ashikaga; Donald L Weaver; Barbara J Miller; Lynne M Jalovec; Thomas G Frazier; R Dirk Noyes; André Robidoux; Hugh M C Scarth; Denise M Mammolito; David R McCready; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Fernanda S Tonin; Laiza M Steimbach; Leticia P Leonart; Vinicius L Ferreira; Helena H Borba; Thais Piazza; Ariane G Araújo; Fernando Fernandez-Llimos; Roberto Pontarolo; Astrid Wiens Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Sara Lodi; Andrew Phillips; Jens Lundgren; Roger Logan; Shweta Sharma; Stephen R Cole; Abdel Babiker; Matthew Law; Haitao Chu; Dana Byrne; Andrzej Horban; Jonathan A C Sterne; Kholoud Porter; Caroline Sabin; Dominique Costagliola; Sophie Abgrall; John Gill; Giota Touloumi; Antonio G Pacheco; Ard van Sighem; Peter Reiss; Heiner C Bucher; Alexandra Montoliu Giménez; Inmaculada Jarrin; Linda Wittkop; Laurence Meyer; Santiago Perez-Hoyos; Amy Justice; James D Neaton; Miguel A Hernán Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.363