Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?

Kevin M. Trentino, Shannon Farmer, Irwin Gross, Aryeh Shander, James Isbister

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    11 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: As defined by evidence-based medicine randomized controlled trials rank higher than observational studies in the hierarchy of clinical research. Accordingly, when assessing the effects of treatments on patient outcomes, there is a tendency to focus on the study method rather than also appraising the key elements of study design. A long-standing debate regarding findings of randomized controlled trials compared with those of observational studies, their strengths and limitations and questions regarding causal inference, has recently come into focus in relation to research assessing patient outcomes in transfusion medicine. Discussion: Observational studies are seen to have limitations that are largely avoided with randomized controlled trials, leading to the view that observational studies should not generally be used to inform practice. For example, observational studies examining patient outcomes associated with blood transfusion often present higher estimates of adverse outcomes than randomized controlled trials. Some have explained this difference as being a result of observational studies not properly adjusting for differences between patients transfused and those not transfused. However, one factor often overlooked, likely contributing to these variances between study methods is different exposure criteria. Another common to both study methods is exposure dose, specifically, measuring units transfused during only a part of the patient's hospital stay. Summary: When comparing the results of observational studies with randomized controlled trials assessing transfusion outcomes it is important that one consider not only the study method, but also the key elements of study design. Any study, regardless of its method, should focus on accurate measurement of the exposure and outcome variables of interest. Failure to do so may subject the study, regardless of its type, to bias and the need to interpret the results with caution.

    Original languageEnglish
    Article number96
    JournalBMC Anesthesiology
    Volume16
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 14 Oct 2016

    Fingerprint

    Observational Studies
    Randomized Controlled Trials
    Transfusion Medicine
    Evidence-Based Medicine
    Research
    Blood Transfusion
    Length of Stay

    Cite this

    @article{514ffe00115648dcae224220fec805ef,
    title = "Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?",
    abstract = "Background: As defined by evidence-based medicine randomized controlled trials rank higher than observational studies in the hierarchy of clinical research. Accordingly, when assessing the effects of treatments on patient outcomes, there is a tendency to focus on the study method rather than also appraising the key elements of study design. A long-standing debate regarding findings of randomized controlled trials compared with those of observational studies, their strengths and limitations and questions regarding causal inference, has recently come into focus in relation to research assessing patient outcomes in transfusion medicine. Discussion: Observational studies are seen to have limitations that are largely avoided with randomized controlled trials, leading to the view that observational studies should not generally be used to inform practice. For example, observational studies examining patient outcomes associated with blood transfusion often present higher estimates of adverse outcomes than randomized controlled trials. Some have explained this difference as being a result of observational studies not properly adjusting for differences between patients transfused and those not transfused. However, one factor often overlooked, likely contributing to these variances between study methods is different exposure criteria. Another common to both study methods is exposure dose, specifically, measuring units transfused during only a part of the patient's hospital stay. Summary: When comparing the results of observational studies with randomized controlled trials assessing transfusion outcomes it is important that one consider not only the study method, but also the key elements of study design. Any study, regardless of its method, should focus on accurate measurement of the exposure and outcome variables of interest. Failure to do so may subject the study, regardless of its type, to bias and the need to interpret the results with caution.",
    keywords = "Bias, Blood transfusion, Causation, Confounding, Observational studies, Randomized controlled trials",
    author = "Trentino, {Kevin M.} and Shannon Farmer and Irwin Gross and Aryeh Shander and James Isbister",
    year = "2016",
    month = "10",
    day = "14",
    doi = "10.1186/s12871-016-0264-4",
    language = "English",
    volume = "16",
    journal = "BMC Anesthesiology",
    issn = "1471-2253",
    publisher = "BioMed Central",
    number = "1",

    }

    Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes? / Trentino, Kevin M.; Farmer, Shannon; Gross, Irwin; Shander, Aryeh; Isbister, James.

    In: BMC Anesthesiology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 96, 14.10.2016.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?

    AU - Trentino, Kevin M.

    AU - Farmer, Shannon

    AU - Gross, Irwin

    AU - Shander, Aryeh

    AU - Isbister, James

    PY - 2016/10/14

    Y1 - 2016/10/14

    N2 - Background: As defined by evidence-based medicine randomized controlled trials rank higher than observational studies in the hierarchy of clinical research. Accordingly, when assessing the effects of treatments on patient outcomes, there is a tendency to focus on the study method rather than also appraising the key elements of study design. A long-standing debate regarding findings of randomized controlled trials compared with those of observational studies, their strengths and limitations and questions regarding causal inference, has recently come into focus in relation to research assessing patient outcomes in transfusion medicine. Discussion: Observational studies are seen to have limitations that are largely avoided with randomized controlled trials, leading to the view that observational studies should not generally be used to inform practice. For example, observational studies examining patient outcomes associated with blood transfusion often present higher estimates of adverse outcomes than randomized controlled trials. Some have explained this difference as being a result of observational studies not properly adjusting for differences between patients transfused and those not transfused. However, one factor often overlooked, likely contributing to these variances between study methods is different exposure criteria. Another common to both study methods is exposure dose, specifically, measuring units transfused during only a part of the patient's hospital stay. Summary: When comparing the results of observational studies with randomized controlled trials assessing transfusion outcomes it is important that one consider not only the study method, but also the key elements of study design. Any study, regardless of its method, should focus on accurate measurement of the exposure and outcome variables of interest. Failure to do so may subject the study, regardless of its type, to bias and the need to interpret the results with caution.

    AB - Background: As defined by evidence-based medicine randomized controlled trials rank higher than observational studies in the hierarchy of clinical research. Accordingly, when assessing the effects of treatments on patient outcomes, there is a tendency to focus on the study method rather than also appraising the key elements of study design. A long-standing debate regarding findings of randomized controlled trials compared with those of observational studies, their strengths and limitations and questions regarding causal inference, has recently come into focus in relation to research assessing patient outcomes in transfusion medicine. Discussion: Observational studies are seen to have limitations that are largely avoided with randomized controlled trials, leading to the view that observational studies should not generally be used to inform practice. For example, observational studies examining patient outcomes associated with blood transfusion often present higher estimates of adverse outcomes than randomized controlled trials. Some have explained this difference as being a result of observational studies not properly adjusting for differences between patients transfused and those not transfused. However, one factor often overlooked, likely contributing to these variances between study methods is different exposure criteria. Another common to both study methods is exposure dose, specifically, measuring units transfused during only a part of the patient's hospital stay. Summary: When comparing the results of observational studies with randomized controlled trials assessing transfusion outcomes it is important that one consider not only the study method, but also the key elements of study design. Any study, regardless of its method, should focus on accurate measurement of the exposure and outcome variables of interest. Failure to do so may subject the study, regardless of its type, to bias and the need to interpret the results with caution.

    KW - Bias

    KW - Blood transfusion

    KW - Causation

    KW - Confounding

    KW - Observational studies

    KW - Randomized controlled trials

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84992124381&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1186/s12871-016-0264-4

    DO - 10.1186/s12871-016-0264-4

    M3 - Article

    VL - 16

    JO - BMC Anesthesiology

    JF - BMC Anesthesiology

    SN - 1471-2253

    IS - 1

    M1 - 96

    ER -