Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 10, 2026

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment

Published on: April 19, 2024

Conflict of Evidence: Resolving Discrepancies When Findings from Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-analyses

Richard J Sylvester¹, Steven E Canfield², Thomas B L Lam³

¹EAU Guidelines Office, Brussels, Belgium.

European Urology

|December 5, 2016

Abstract

Context:

Clinicians and treatment guideline developers are faced with a dilemma when the results of a new, large, well-conducted randomized controlled trial (RCT) are in direct conflict with the results of a previous systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA).

Objective:

To explore and discuss possible reasons for disagreement in results from SRs/MAs and RCTs and to provide guidance to clinicians and guideline developers for making well-informed treatment decisions and recommendations in the face of conflicting data.

Evidence Acquisition:

The advantages and limitations of RCTs and SRs/MAs are reviewed. Two practical examples that have a direct bearing on European Association of Urology guidelines on treatment recommendations are discussed in detail to illustrate the points to be considered when conflicts exist between the results of large RCTs and SRs/MAs.

Evidence Synthesis:

RCTs are the gold standard for providing evidence of the effectiveness of interventions. However, concerns regarding the internal and external validity of an RCT may limit its applicability to clinical practice. SRs/MAs synthesize all evidence related to a given research question, but two urologic examples show that the validity of the results depends on the quality of the individual studies, the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the studies, and publication bias.

Conclusions:

Although SRs/MAs can provide a higher level of evidence than RCTs, the quality of the evidence from both RCTs and SRs/MAs should be investigated when their results conflict to determine which source provides the better evidence. Guideline developers should have a well-defined and robust process to assess the evidence from MAs and RCTs when such conflicts exist.

Patient Summary:

We discuss the advantages and limitations of using data from randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews/meta-analyses in informing clinical practice when there are conflicting results. We provide guidance on how such conflicts should be dealt with by guideline organizations.

Keywords:

Conflict of evidence Meta-analyses Randomized controlled trials Systematic reviews Treatment guidelines

More Related Videos

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness and Safety of Shugan Jieyu Capsules for the Treatment of Insomnia

Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness and Safety of Shugan Jieyu Capsules for the Treatment of Insomnia

Published on: February 17, 2023

Related Concept Videos

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...

Confounding in Epidemiological Studies

Confounding in Epidemiological Studies

Confounding in statistical epidemiology represents a pivotal challenge, referring to the distortion in the perceived relationship between an exposure and an outcome due to the presence of a third variable, known as a confounder. This variable is associated with both the exposure and the outcome but is not a direct link in their causal chain. Its presence can lead to erroneous interpretations of the exposure's effect, either exaggerating or underestimating the true association. This...

Hazard Ratio

Hazard Ratio

The hazard ratio (HR) is a widely used measure in clinical trials to compare the risk of events, such as death or disease recurrence, between two groups over time. It reflects the ratio of hazard rates—the instantaneous risk of the event occurring—between a treatment group and a control group. This measure provides valuable insights into the relative effectiveness of a treatment by assessing how the risk of an event differs between the two groups.
For example, in a clinical trial...

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...

Blinding

Blinding

Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

The 24-mo Outcomes from the Noninferiority Randomised Controlled Trial of Surgery for Men with Urodynamic Stress Incontinence After Prostate Surgery (MASTER).

European urology focus·2026

"I think that there is a lack of information and awareness": A PRAISE-U Clinical Trial Update.

European urology focus·2026

Patellar resurfacing in total knee replacement: 20-year clinical and economic results of a large multicentre, randomised controlled trial in the UK.

Lancet (London, England)·2026

Use of Artificial Intelligence in prostate MRI: A rapid scoping review highlighting limited evidence in screening context.

European journal of radiology·2026

Outcomes of Intermediate Risk Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Receiving Adjuvant Treatment: A Pooled Analysis of Four Randomized Controlled Trials.

European urology oncology·2026

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of text message and financial incentives for weight management in men with obesity: The Game of Stones RCT.

Public health research (Southampton, England)·2026

See all related articles