Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case–Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Abstract

BackgroundObservational studies are increasingly being used for assessing therapeutic interventions. Case–control studies are generally considered to have greater risk of bias than cohort studies, but we lack evidence of differences in effect estimates between the 2 study types. We aimed to compare estimates between cohort and case–control studies in meta-analyses of observational studies of therapeutic interventions by using a meta-epidemiological study.MethodsWe used a random sample of meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions published in 2013 that included both cohort and case–control studies assessing a binary outcome. For each meta-analysis, the ratio of estimates (RE) was calculated by comparing the estimate in case–control studies to that in cohort studies. Then, we used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate a combined RE across meta-analyses. An RE < 1 indicated that case–control studies yielded larger estimates than cohort studies.ResultsThe final analysis included 23 meta-analyses: 138 cohort and 133 case–control studies. Treatment effect estimates did not significantly differ between case–control and cohort studies (combined RE 0.97 [95% CI 0.86–1.09]). Heterogeneity was low, with between–meta-analysis variance τ2 = 0.0049. Estimates did not differ between case–control and prospective or retrospective cohort studies (RE = 1.05 [95% CI 0.96–1.15] and RE = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83–1.19], respectively). Sensitivity analysis of studies reporting adjusted estimates also revealed no significant difference (RE = 1.03 [95% CI 0.91–1.16]). Heterogeneity was also low for these analyses.ConclusionWe found no significant difference in treatment effect estimates between case–control and cohort studies assessing therapeutic interventions.

Antidepressant use during pregnancy and risk of autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: systematic review of observational studies and methodological considerations

“…The dominant issue influencing both study designs is unmeasured confounding, largely weighted by confounding indication and by severity of disease. This affects case–control and cohort studies similarly but the technique allows more studies to be combined to highlight the observed effect, in keeping with other similar results comparing these study designs [ 43 ]. A strength of our study is the inclusion of a large number of studies incorporating other types of comparators and designs, comparing the effects in both ASD and ADHD.…”

Antithyroid drug use during pregnancy and the risk of birth defects in offspring: systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies with methodological considerations

“…Odds ratios from case-control studies and hazard ratios from cohort studies were combined because they closely approximate each other. 19,20 For reporting, pooled effect estimates are subsequently referred to as risk ratios (RR) throughout. Publication bias was assessed by testing for funnel-plot asymmetry using the Egger test.…”

Development and validation of study filters for identifying controlled non‐randomized studies in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE

“…Therefore, we aimed to develop a study filter that does not specifically cover individual NRS study types, but rather identifies NRS with the important feature of a control group. Finally, cohort and case‐control studies produce similar effect estimates, 29 so jointly searching for both designs also seems reasonable.…”