Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes?
MetadataShow full item record
© 2016 The Author(s).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.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Hepcidin predicts response to IV iron therapy in patients admitted to the intensive care unit: A nested cohort studyLitton, E.; Baker, S.; Erber, W.; Farmer, Shannon; Ferrier, J.; French, C.; Gummer, J.; Hawkins, D.; Higgins, A.; Hofmann, A.; De Keulenaer, B.; McMorrow, J.; Olynyk, John; Richards, T.; Towler, S.; Trengove, R.; Webb, S.; Chapman, A.; Jenkinson, E.; Palermo, A.; Roberts, B. (2018)© 2018 The Author(s). Background: Both anaemia and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion are common and associated with adverse outcomes in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to ...
The IRONMAN trial: a protocol for a multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial of intravenous iron in intensive care unit patients with anaemiaLitton, E.; Baker, S.; Erber, W.; French, C.; Ferrier, J.; Hawkins, D.; Higgins, A.; Hofmann, Axel; De Keulenaer, B.; Farmer, Shannon; McMorrow, J.; Olynyk, John; Richards, T.; Towler, Simon; Webb, S. (2014)Background: Allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is associated with significant increases in mortality and major morbidity in patients admitted to the intensive care unit, and the blood supplies it requires are an ...
Intravenous iron or placebo for anaemia in intensive care: the IRONMAN multicentre randomized blinded trial: A randomized trial of IV iron in critical illnessThe, I.; Litton, E.; Baker, S.; Erber, W.; Farmer, Shannon; Ferrier, J.; French, C.; Gummer, J.; Hawkins, D.; Higgins, A.; Hofmann, Axel; De Keulenaer, B.; McMorrow, J.; Olynyk, John; Richards, T.; Towler, S.; Trengove, R.; Webb, S.; The, A. (2016)Purpose: Both anaemia and allogenic red blood cell transfusion are common and potentially harmful in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Whilst intravenous iron may decrease anaemia and RBC transfusion requirement, ...