Adding non-randomised studies to a Cochrane review brings complementary information for healthcare stakeholders: an augmented systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundTo reduce the burden of asthma, chronic disease management (CDM) programmes have been widely implemented and evaluated. Reviews including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that CDM programmes for asthma are effective. Other study designs are however often used for pragmatic reasons, but excluded from these reviews because of their design. We aimed to examine what complementary information could be retrieved from the addition of non-randomised studies to the studies included in a published Cochrane review on asthma CDM programmes, for healthcare stakeholders involved in the development, implementation, conduct or long-term sustainability of such programmes.MethodsExtending a previously published Cochrane review, we performed a systematic review (augmented review) including any type of study designs instead of only those initially accepted by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review group. After double data selection and extraction, we compared study and intervention characteristics, assessed methodological quality and ran meta-analyses, by study design.ResultsWe added 37 studies to the 20 studies included in the Cochrane review. The applicability of results was increased because of the larger variety of settings and asthma population considered. Also, adding non-randomised studies provided new evidence of improvements associated with CDM intervention (i.e. healthcare utilisation, days off work, use of action plan). Finally, evidence of CDM effectiveness in the added studies was consistent with the Cochrane review in terms of direction of effects.ConclusionsThe evidence of this augmented review is applicable to a broader set of patients and settings than those in the original Cochrane review. It also strengthens the message that CDM programmes have a beneficial effect on quality of life and disease severity, meaningful outcomes for the everyday life of patients with asthma. Despite the moderate to low methodological quality of all studies included, calling for caution in results interpretation and improvements in CDM evaluation methods and reporting, the inclusion of a broader set of study designs in systematic reviews of complex interventions, such as chronic disease management, is likely to be of high value and interest to patients, policymakers and other healthcare stakeholders.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1816-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The feasibility, acceptability and outcomes of exergaming among individuals with cancer: a systematic review

“…Reviews with few or no randomised controlled trials are still valuable for inclusion within systematic reviews as they provide information regarding the feasibility of an intervention [ 73 ]. They can also prove to be of high value and of high interest to patients, healthcare professionals and stakeholders [ 74 , 75 ]. The sample sizes within the studies were also relatively small, in one case with only one eligible participant.…”

Operative treatment versus nonoperative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures: systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Furthermore, observational studies might provide insight into a variety of populations and long term effects compared with the usually highly selected patient populations in RCTs. 12 13 Both RCTs and observational studies are increasingly used in orthopaedic trauma meta-analyses for the evaluation of treatment effects. 14 15 16 17 …”

WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to long working hours and of the effect of exposure to long working hours on ischaemic heart disease

“…Eligible study designs will be randomized controlled trials (including parallel-group, cluster, cross-over and factorial trials), cohort studies (both prospective and retrospective), case-control studies, and other non-randomized intervention studies (including quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies). We included a broader set of observational study designs than is commonly included, because a recent augmented Cochrane Review of complex interventions identified valuable additional studies using such a broader set of study designs 60 . As we have an interest in quantifying risk and not in qualitative assessment of hazard 61 , we will exclude all other study designs (e.g.…”