Retrolective study design - a new tool of evidence-based medicine

Martin, S

doi:10.1055/s-2005-870877

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 29 studies used a prospective design, five studies used a retrospective design, and three used a retrolective design. By “retrolective”, the authors of the respective studies understand retrospective data analysis from patient records that are chosen without the evaluators knowing neither the outcome of the respective case nor the identity of the respective patient (Augustin et al 2005 ; Martin 2005 ). Three studies reported on prospective cases compared with a retrospective control group.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic assessment of the influence of quality of studies on mistletoe in cancer care on the results of a meta-analysis on overall survival

Hofinger,

Kaesmann,

Buentzel

et al. 2024

J Cancer Res Clin Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Mistletoe treatment in cancer patients is controversial, and a Cochrane review concluded that due to heterogeneity, performing a meta-analysis was not suitable. However, several systematic reviews included meta-analyses in favor of mistletoe. The aim of this work was to assess the influence of the methodological quality of controlled studies on the results of a meta-analysis regarding overall survival. Methods Between April and August 2022, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science were systematically searched. In addition, reference lists of previously published meta-analyses were checked for relevant publications. A random effects meta-analysis with clustering was performed. The risk of bias within the studies was assessed using ROB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. Results The search identified 4685 hits, and 28 publications reporting on 28 298 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Overall, the analysis led to a significant result in favor of mistletoe therapy (overall HR = 0.61 with 95% CI [0.53;0.7]). According to our subgroup analysis of randomized studies, studies of higher quality (lower risk of bias) did not lead to a significant result in favor of mistletoe therapy (HR = 0.78; CI = [0.30; 2.00]). Conclusions In the case of mistletoe therapy, the results of the meta-analysis strongly depended on the methodological quality of the included studies. Calculating meta-analyses that include low-quality studies may lead to severe misinterpretation of the data.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%