Sally C Morton1, Monica R Costlow2, Jennifer S Graff3, Robert W Dubois3. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 DeSoto Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA. Electronic address: scmorton@pitt.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 DeSoto Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA. 3. National Pharmaceutical Council, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patient care decisions demand high-quality research. To assist those decisions, numerous observational studies are being performed. Are the standards and guidelines to assess observational studies consistent and actionable? What policy considerations should be considered to ensure decision makers can determine if an observational study is of high-quality and valid to inform treatment decisions? STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on a literature review and input from six experts, we compared and contrasted nine standards/guidelines using 23 methodological elements involved in observational studies (e.g., study protocol, data analysis, and so forth). RESULTS: Fourteen elements (61%) were addressed by at least seven standards/guidelines; 12 of these elements disagreed in the approach. Nine elements (39%) were addressed by six or fewer standards/guidelines. Ten elements (43%) were not actionable in at least one standard/guideline that addressed the element. CONCLUSION: The lack of observational study standard/guideline agreement may contribute to variation in study conduct; disparities in what is considered credible research; and ultimately, what evidence is adopted. A common set of agreed on standards/guidelines for conducting observational studies will benefit funders, researchers, journal editors, and decision makers.
OBJECTIVES:Patient care decisions demand high-quality research. To assist those decisions, numerous observational studies are being performed. Are the standards and guidelines to assess observational studies consistent and actionable? What policy considerations should be considered to ensure decision makers can determine if an observational study is of high-quality and valid to inform treatment decisions? STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on a literature review and input from six experts, we compared and contrasted nine standards/guidelines using 23 methodological elements involved in observational studies (e.g., study protocol, data analysis, and so forth). RESULTS: Fourteen elements (61%) were addressed by at least seven standards/guidelines; 12 of these elements disagreed in the approach. Nine elements (39%) were addressed by six or fewer standards/guidelines. Ten elements (43%) were not actionable in at least one standard/guideline that addressed the element. CONCLUSION: The lack of observational study standard/guideline agreement may contribute to variation in study conduct; disparities in what is considered credible research; and ultimately, what evidence is adopted. A common set of agreed on standards/guidelines for conducting observational studies will benefit funders, researchers, journal editors, and decision makers.
Authors: Alexandra Nuytten; Hélène Behal; Alain Duhamel; Pierre-Henri Jarreau; Jan Mazela; David Milligan; Ludwig Gortner; Aurélie Piedvache; Jennifer Zeitlin; Patrick Truffert Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Luisa F Figueredo; María Camila Pedraza-Ciro; Juan Sebastian Lopez-McCormick; Roberto Javier Rueda-Esteban; Juan Armando Mejía-Cordovez Journal: World Neurosurg X Date: 2019-05-21
Authors: Elvira D'Andrea; Lydia Vinals; Elisabetta Patorno; Jessica M Franklin; Dimitri Bennett; Joan A Largent; Daniela C Moga; Hongbo Yuan; Xuerong Wen; Andrew R Zullo; Thomas P A Debray; Grammati Sarri Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Grammati Sarri; Elisabetta Patorno; Hongbo Yuan; Jianfei Jeff Guo; Dimitri Bennett; Xuerong Wen; Andrew R Zullo; Joan Largent; Mary Panaccio; Mugdha Gokhale; Daniela Claudia Moga; M Sanni Ali; Thomas P A Debray Journal: BMJ Evid Based Med Date: 2020-12-09