Cited by 130Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesDelphi Technique in Research

Issues relating to confounding and meta‐analysis when including non‐randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions

Valentine, Jeffrey C., Thompson, Simon G.·2013·Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract

Background: Confounding caused by selection bias is often a key difference between non‐randomized studies (NRS) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions. Key methodological issues: In this third paper of the series, we consider issues relating to the inclusion of NRS in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. We discuss whether potential biases from confounding in NRS can be accounted for, the limitations of current methods for attempting to do so, the different contexts of NRS and RCTs, the problems these issues create for reviewers, and a research agenda for the future. Guidance: Reviewers who are considering whether or not to include NRS in meta‐analyses must weigh a number of factors. Including NRS may allow a review to address outcomes or pragmatic implementations of an intervention not studied in RCTs, but it will also increase the workload for the review team, as well as their required technical repertoire. Furthermore, the results of a synthesis involving NRS will likely be more difficult to interpret, and less certain, relative to the results of a synthesis involving only randomized studies. When both randomized and non‐randomized evidence are available, we favor a strategy of including NRS and RCTs in the same systematic review but synthesizing their results separately. Conclusion: Including NRS will often make the limitations of the evidence derived from RCTs more apparent, thereby guiding inferences about generalizability, and may help with the design of the next generation of RCTs. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.1064

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Valentine, J. C., & Thompson, S. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Louisville (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Valentine, Jeffrey C.
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-11-06
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
26-35
ISSN
  • 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-2887
OpenAlex
W1918813775
Cited by
130
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0512-10165)
  • British Heart Foundation (RG/08/014/24067)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/L003120/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
confounding, selection bias, non-randomized studies, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, generalizability, evidence synthesis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review