IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0139975.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Concordance of Results from Randomized and Observational Analyses within the Same Study: A Re-Analysis of the Women’s Health Initiative Limited-Access Dataset

Author

Listed:
  • Mark J Bolland
  • Andrew Grey
  • Greg D Gamble
  • Ian R Reid

Abstract

Background: Observational studies (OS) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often report discordant results. In the Women’s Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D (WHI CaD) RCT, women were randomly assigned to CaD or placebo, but were permitted to use personal calcium and vitamin D supplements, creating a unique opportunity to compare results from randomized and observational analyses within the same study. Methods: WHI CaD was a 7-year RCT of 1g calcium/400IU vitamin D daily in 36,282 post-menopausal women. We assessed the effects of CaD on cardiovascular events, death, cancer and fracture in a randomized design- comparing CaD with placebo in 43% of women not using personal calcium or vitamin D supplements- and in a observational design- comparing women in the placebo group (44%) using personal calcium and vitamin D supplements with non-users. Incidence was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models, and results from the two study designs deemed concordant if the absolute difference in hazard ratios was ≤0.15. We also compared results from WHI CaD to those from the WHI Observational Study(WHI OS), which used similar methodology for analyses and recruited from the same population. Results: In WHI CaD, for myocardial infarction and stroke, results of unadjusted and 6/8 covariate-controlled observational analyses (age-adjusted, multivariate-adjusted, propensity-adjusted, propensity-matched) were not concordant with the randomized design results. For death, hip and total fracture, colorectal and total cancer, unadjusted and covariate-controlled observational results were concordant with randomized results. For breast cancer, unadjusted and age-adjusted observational results were concordant with randomized results, but only 1/3 other covariate-controlled observational results were concordant with randomized results. Multivariate-adjusted results from WHI OS were concordant with randomized WHI CaD results for only 4/8 endpoints. Conclusions: Results of randomized analyses in WHI CaD were concordant with observational analyses for 5/8 endpoints in WHI CaD and 4/8 endpoints in WHI OS.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark J Bolland & Andrew Grey & Greg D Gamble & Ian R Reid, 2015. "Concordance of Results from Randomized and Observational Analyses within the Same Study: A Re-Analysis of the Women’s Health Initiative Limited-Access Dataset," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-13, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0139975
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139975
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139975&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0139975?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0139975. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.