Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 5, 2025
Efficient Sampling of Genetically Encoded Biosensor Design Space Enabled with a Design of Experiments and Automation Workflow
Published on: October 17, 2025
Compared to randomized studies, observational studies may overestimate the effectiveness of DOACs: a
Maissa Safieddine1, Celine Chapelle2, Edouard Ollier2
1Unité de Recherche Clinique, Innovation, Pharmacologie, CHU Saint-Etienne, Hôpital Nord, F-42055 Saint-Etienne, France; Unité de Soutien Méthodologique, INSERM, CIC1410, CHU de la Réunion, Saint-Denis, France.
Background And Objectives:
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are criticized for including patients who are overselected. Health authorities consequently encourage "real-world" postmarketing cohort studies. Our objective was to determine the differences between RCTs and observational studies as regards their populations and efficacy/safety results.
Methods:
A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs and observational studies including patients with venous thromboembolism receiving direct oral anticoagulants or conventional treatment. Ratios of hazard ratio (RHR) comparing epidemiological studies (prospective and retrospective cohort studies and studies using living databases) with RCTs were computed.
Results:
Six RCTs (27,121 patients) and twenty observational studies (248,971 patients) were identified and analyzed. Prospective cohort studies seemed to recruit patients who were no less selected than those of RCTs whereas other types of observational studies may reflect the population treated in real life. Among observational studies, prospective cohort studies yielded the most favorable estimates of treatment effect compared with RCTs. These studies were associated with a nonsignificant 33% increase in efficacy estimate (RHR 0.67, [95% CI, 0.39-1.18]) but no effect on safety estimate. Studies using living databases were associated with nonsignificant trends toward a greater effect on efficacy (RHR 0.82, [0.66-1.01]) and a smaller effect on safety (RHR 1.33, [0.96-1.84]).
Discussion:
Overall, in this clinical setting, an exaggeration of the treatment efficacy estimate was seen with observational studies compared with RCTs.
Conclusions:
As the presence of residual confounding cannot be excluded, these results should be interpreted cautiously.
More Related Videos
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
08:36Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Related Concept Videos
01:11Observational Studies
There are three types of observational studies – Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional.
Prospective Study
Prospective studies, also known as longitudinal or cohort studies, are carried out by collecting future data from groups sharing similar characteristics. One...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
01:08Data Collection by Observations
An astronomer viewing the motion and brightness of stars in the sky and recording the data is an example of observational data collection. A botanist recording...
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
01:15Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...