CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 123Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Combining randomized and non‐randomized evidence in clinical research: a review of methods and applications

Verde, Pablo E., Ohmann, Christian·2015·Research Synthesis Methods
DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1122
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Researchers may have multiple motivations for combining disparate pieces of evidence in a meta‐analysis, such as generalizing experimental results or increasing the power to detect an effect that a single study is not able to detect. However, while in meta‐analysis, the main question may be simple, the structure of evidence available to answer it may be complex. As a consequence, combining disparate pieces of evidence becomes a challenge. In this review, we cover statistical methods that have been used for the evidence‐synthesis of different study types with the same outcome and similar interventions. For the methodological review, a literature retrieval in the area of generalized evidence‐synthesis was performed, and publications were identified, assessed, grouped and classified. Furthermore real applications of these methods in medicine were identified and described. For these approaches, 39 real clinical applications could be identified. A new classification of methods is provided, which takes into account: the inferential approach, the bias modeling, the hierarchical structure, and the use of graphical modeling. We conclude with a discussion of pros and cons of our approach and give some practical advice. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.1122

Cites

127 of 127 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?

  • Some authors agreed that study design should be investigated as a potential source of between study heterogeneity, and others recommended presenting meta-analyses for each study type alongside results from an overall meta-analysis.

    “Some authors agreed that study design should be investigated as a potential source of between study heterogeneity [8, 34, 42, 77], and others recommended presenting meta-analyses for each study type alongside results from an overall meta-analysis [42, 83].”

    From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [83]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 128 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Verde, P. E., & Ohmann, C.
Affiliations
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Verde, Pablo E.
ORCID
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06-03
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
45-62
ISSN
  • 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-2887
DOI
10.1002/jrsm.1122
OpenAlex
W1580781770
Cited by
123
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Oh 39/11-1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
hierarchical models, graphical modeling
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Humans, Regression Analysis, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical, Bias, Likelihood Functions, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Biostatistics

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