Clinical Epidemiology (Dec 2018)
Observational studies of treatment effectiveness: worthwhile or worthless?
Abstract
Manuj Sharma,1 Irwin Nazareth,1 Irene Petersen1,2 1Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK; 2Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Abstract: Observational studies which evaluate effectiveness are often viewed with skepticism owing to the fact that patients are not randomized to treatment, meaning that results are more prone to bias. Therefore, randomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for evaluating treatment effectiveness. However, it is not always possible to conduct randomized trials. This may be due to financial constraints, for example, in identifying funding for a randomized trial for medicines that have already gained market authorization. There can also be challenges with recruitment, for example, of people with rare conditions or in hard-to-reach population subgroups. This is why observational studies are still needed. In this manuscript, we discuss how researchers can mitigate the risk of bias in the most common type of observational study design for evaluation of treatment effectiveness, the cohort study. We outline some key issues that warrant careful consideration at the outset when the question is being developed and the cohort study is being designed. We focus our discussion on the importance of deciding when to start follow-up in a study, choosing a comparator, managing confounding and measuring outcomes. We also illustrate the application of these considerations in a more detailed case study based on an examination of comparative effectiveness of two antidiabetic treatments using data collected during routine clinical practice. Keywords: epidemiology, therapeutics, diabetes mellitus, public health, effectiveness
